Before the House adjourned last night, I pointed out that one of the indirect results of this Budget could be that mortgage interest rates on housing loans would be increased. The Association of Building Societies announced yesterday that for the present they would not increase their mortgage rates, an announcement for which everyone in the country will be thankful to them. At the same time, however, I pointed out that this announcement was subject to a very large question mark, i.e. that it depends upon whether or not other deposit receiving institutions will increase their rates on deposits. The building societies made it clear in their statement of yesterday that if this were to happen, they would be forced to put up their rates as well. Consequently, I want to make a specific plea to the Government on behalf of this side of the House, i.e. that they must ensure that mortgage rates on housing loans are not increased beyond the present rate. I therefore call upon the hon. the Minister of Finance to give to the people of South Africa this assurance when he replies to this debate. The people of South Africa are already suffering as a result of living costs that are far too high; therefore they are entitled to demand from the Government that it should ensure that mortgage rates are not increased further. I want to emphasize that if mortgage rates are increased the living expenses of practically every South African will also rise—not only those of the house owner, but also those of every tenant and every occupier of a boarding house or residential hotel. If rates for the landlord are increased he will inevitably pass that increase on to his tenants. In that way any increase in mortgage rates will permeate to the pockets of every South African.

I emphasized yesterday that the only way to ensure that mortgage interest rates are maintained at their present level, is to help those institutions who traditionally finance housing, i.e. building societies. The Minister asked me to be specific and I made certain specific suggestions to him last night. The hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Parktown have also made certain suggestions, and I urge the hon. the Minister to give all these suggestions his favourable consideration. One of the best ways of ensuring that mortgage rates of interest are not increased is to increase the tax-free share limit which at present is limited to R10,000 at a deposit interest rate of per cent. By these means building societies have been able to attract a large sum of money. If the hon. the Minister was now to increase this limit, say to R15,000 or R20,000, and maintain the deposit rate of interest at per cent he will enable building societies to attract further large sums of money which, in turn, will enable them to provide the bonds they are asked for. [Time expired.]

The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, has a personal interest in the subject he spoke about. There are things about which one has to disagree with him, but at the same time he expressed certain positive ideas that justify attention. My time is too limited to go into that; in any case, there are other speakers who will do so.

I should like to come back to the speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Hill-brow. Yesterday was apparently the day on which the youth of the United Party and the youth of South Africa had to receive guidance, and there the hon. member for Hillbrow then revealed himself as the new leader of the youth of South Africa. In the course of his speech he made certain statements which will certainly not pass unnoticed. I want to refer to a few of his utterances. He was anxious to prove to us that the immigrants from overseas were letting new thoughts and new ideas take root among the youth of South Africa, that our young people supposedly think differently to the adults and that they have another approach to the so-called separation between Afrikaans and English-speaking people. He says they are not interested in separation. But I now wonder how the hon. member could have so short a memory as to say that, because separation is then specifically the policy of his party, a policy that was advocated in this same House in February of this year by a very venerable member of that side of the House, the then hon. member for Kensington. On the 17th February the hon. member spoke here about education and culture and said that it was a very grave subject. He said that he wanted to suggest something constructive. By the way, nowhere in his entire speech did he say that his standpoint was only his personal standpoint and opinion, and that his party was therefore not bound by it. He spoke throughout as if he was speaking on behalf of the United Party, and at one stage, when he made certain suggestions, he even spoke of “we”. The hon. member made suggestions for separation in the field of education and culture. According to column 1215 he said—

In addition he advocates two schools boards for the Witwatersrand—an English one and an Afrikaans one. He continues by advocating that the Department of Education should have two sections, each with its own head, and the one must be an English section for the English-speaking people, and the other must be an Afrikaans section for the Afrikaans-speaking people.

Have you never heard of sarcasm? He was speaking sarcastically.

That is now the separation he wanted. When the hon. member for Kensington made that speech, he was very very much in earnest. He even went further and advocated that there should be two National Councils of Education, and if there cannot be two, there must be one with eight members, four of which are English speaking and four of which are Afrikaans speaking. [Interjections.] Yes, I know this speech hurts, because hon. members opposite had forgotten about this. But then the previous hon. member for Kensington came along— and I wonder what his successor will say to that—and said that in the sphere of culture he also wanted to make a positive suggestion, and there he then advocated two broadcasting corporations, one Afrikaans speaking and one English speaking. And then he went even further and said that we as Afrikaans-speaking people could not decide whether the reading matter of our English-speaking children was good or bad for them; we must have an English Publications Board, and the Afrikaans-speaking people should have an Afrikaans Publications Board. [Interjections.] That is now the hon. member who says that the United Party can build the bridges for our young people in the educational and cultural spheres, but that is the separation they advocate.

But let us go a little further. The hon. member referred to the report of the Pieterse Commission at the University of Pretoria. It was a very interesting report in five volumes, but the part the hon. member quoted in his speech he did not quote in full, because although it is stated in that report that about 76 per cent of those young people said that they wanted to be called South Africans and that they wanted to be South Africans, it was also Stated in about the third last paragraph of that chapter, that that survey should be approached and handled carefully, because the full consequences were not made clear to the people. [Interjections.] Read the report. I did not have the opportunity this morning of reading it, but a few weeks ago I went through it carefully. and you will find it there. But just go along to those same young people of ours and speak to them about the distinction between politics and culture, and ask them where they fit in politically. He will then say that he fits in as a South African, but ask him where he fits in culturally, and he will tell you that he fits in as an Afrikaner or as an English-speaking person, and that he is very proud of the fact. But hon. members do not want to make that distinction. If the Afrikaner and we on this side of the House are prepared to take a balanced view of this matter and to propagate it in a balanced way as the hon. the Prime Minister, in particular, has done in the past few months, then you do not like it, because you do not want to see the two groups of people in their cultural context, since you are too afraid that they will cling to those cultural assets of theirs and propagate them. You do not want to give the Afrikaner or the English-speaking person that right. But let me just go a little further.

Is the Rapportryers a cultural organization? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member is now referring to the students of the University of Pretoria, and I now want to tell you this. Between the Pretoria University students and the Potchefstroom University students, as political citizens, there is no distinction, but do you know what is interesting, Sir? I can guarantee the hon. member that he may go along and make a survey among a specific group of about 5,000 students and senior school children at high schools; because the hon. member also wants to imply by this South African idea of his that those young people who say they want to be South Africans are also saying they want to be United Party members, and that is where he is making a mistake. By saying they want to be South Africans, they are not saying they also want to be United Party members, because you may come along to my constituency, and together, or you may do it on your own, we could carry out a survey among about 5,500 students, and I guarantee you, Sir, that not 3 per cent of them will vote United Party.

You are just as right as you were in the election.

You see. Sir, this new leader of the youth of the United Party is making a big mistake.

May I ask the hon. member where he classifies the Rapportryers, as political or cultural?

As cultural. But we can argue about that later. The mistake the hon. member for Hillbrow makes is this: He thinks that our youth, when they do think, think only to differ, but he does not see what is positive in their thinking; neither does he see what is positive in their differing, and he does not realize that the greatest majority of our youth have already accepted the basic idea of the policy of separate development; even the United Party youths have accepted it. It is only the other small group, about a few thousand strong, who welcomed Mr. Steytler at the Durban Airport as a terribly big hero, who have not yet accepted it, but the rest have already done so. But, Sir, let us go a little further. The hon. member said that we should bring our children together; that we must not separate them. He then referred to the A.S.B. and to N.U.S.A.S. I know that he would very much like to imply that we are driving our children apart by means of our parallel medium schools and our education policy But let us now just come back to earth for a moment. I ask the hon. member to mention a single English private school where parallel medium education is being applied.

What about Vander-bijl Park school?

The hon. member’s followers take their children out of a parallel medium school area to a private English school in an altogether different area. But let us just come back to the Transvaal for a moment. I regret that I do not have the figures for my own town here; I had them recently, but I left them at home. Let us take the Transvaal figures. In the Transvaal—and I am quoting from a cutting from Die Vader-land—there are about 370 parallel medium secondary and primary schools …

How many of them are in the country districts?

Just a moment. In the Transvaal there are about 370 parallel medium secondary and primary schools, with 94.334 children, 6,225 of whom are English-speaking. 94 per cent of the English-speaking children are in English-medium schools: only 6 per cent are in parallel medium schools, and the important point is this: In the parallel medium school the parents have the choice about whether they want to send the child there or not. The parents have the choice; there is no interference on the part of the State, but 6 per cent of the children, for whom the hon. member is making such propaganda, are sent to these schools.

Because there are no other facilities for them.

What is of further importance is this. And I wonder if this instruction about this same question, an instruction about which mention has been made and which was sent out during a previous provincial election to United Party candidates and organizers, has ever been repealed yet. Hon. members opposite could tell us. In it they said how the National Party should fee attacked on such matters; and then it is stated—

Sir, in the Select Committee which had to decide on this Ordinance, United Party members voted with the National Party on the question of mother-tongue education, and what does this instruction tell the United Panty members? This instruction states—

Now they are “zipped”.

This instruction was issued to the U.P. members an election or so ago—

These are now the people who want to build bridges. Let us now see how much these people love their country, these people who want to build bridges and who want to bring the two language groups together in one big South Africa. But let me read to you what the inhabitants of Natal decided on 26th October, 1926.

1926?

It was the decision taken by the United Party of Natal on 26th October, 1926. when the rest of South Africa had already found a point of balance for themselves about certain political questions. That same party came along then and decided the following (translation) —

I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) could possibly have been there. The following decision was subsequently taken—

In other words, they did not want General Hertzog to try to make us independent. When he tried they were venomously against it.

But I shall now come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow, particularly because during the election he cast it in our teeth that the big complaint of the voters was that the recession on the Stock Exchange was the Government’s fault. He was, after all, a great prophet then. He should have known better than to do so. He did it whilst knowing personally that it was not the case, and whilst the Press, which is favourably disposed towards him, i.e. the Sunday Times, the Sunday Express and the Rand Daily Mail, said that “No reasonable person can blame the Minister”. In addition they should probably have said that no reasonable person except the United Party blames the Minister.

I said that he had not loaded the gun, but he pressed the trigger.

I shall now come back to the hon. member. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also made the accusation against us that we are not creating sufficient technical training facilities for Whites as well as for Bantu. Actually, in his first statement he went a bit further than just technical training. The hon. member is surely aware that since the 1958 legislation a hundred various courses have been instituted for the training of technicians in South Africa, and that more than 4,000 have already been trained. If the hon. member would just take the trouble to consult the Department of Bantu Education and to visit the trade schools —we cannot yet regard them as higher technical institutions—in certain large Bantu areas, he would find there that they are being trained technically in building construction, electrical work, watchmaking, plumbing and woodwork. There are more advanced courses, such as those of engineering technicians, health inspectors, survey technicians, and health assistants Unfortunately I do not find a diamond cutter among them. The hon. member will have to tell the House at a later stage if he is prepared to include that advanced technical art of the diamond cutting industry. He will also have to say how far he wants to see them progress in that industry.

While I am dealing with the sphere of education: The United Party comes alone here and blames the Government, and particularly the hon. Prime Minister, saying that we do not do enough for education and particularly for advanced education in South Africa. Then the United Party comes along and says that the number of students is increasing in proportion to the capital being spent on education. I should just like to mention a single example to hon. members in this connection. From 1948 to 1960 there was a student increase of 121.4 per cent. The increase in Government contributions up to that time was 347 per cent: in other words, the Government’s contribution increased more than three fold within 12 years. Up to 1968 there was a student increase of 225 per cent, and the State’s contribution, calculated on the basis of the 1948 contribution, increased by 941 per cent. Unfortunately there is no further time in which to speak about that. The hon. members on the other side must therefore not come along to the House with education matters, accusing us here of certain things and trying to bring the young people under the wrong impression, particularly our young people who like to take an idealistic view of things and who state their views to us in an idealistic way. There are people who should rather ask themselves what their leaders are advocating, elsewhere and here in the House.

I should also just like to mention a single other aspect. We have already repeatedly had the experience of newspapers supporting the United Party giving them assistance and answers in connection with certain matters. Because my time is almost up I just want to mention one matter. I want to quote the advice of the Sunday Times to the United Party, and particularly to the hon. member for Hillbrow. Yesterday he said here with great enthusiasm that the people outside were accenting and supporting the federal idea to an increasing extent. What is the advice the hon. member received after the election in 1966 from the editor-in-chief of the Sunday Times himself in a special leader on the front page? Hon. members opposite did not like it very much. He said to the hon. member for Hillbrow—

That is what they told the hon. member in 1966.

Except for Bantustans.

No, there was no such qualification. That same adviser is now just as ambiguous as hon. members opposite. Now apartheid is once more being denounced as something extremely bad by the same editor in the same newspaper. After all, the United Party has now obtained an additional nine seats. This is. of course, only temporary, i.e. just until October. The Sunday Times now says the following about separate development—

This is typical of the United Party and also of their chief mouthpiece.

Mr. Speaker, this being the first occasion on which I shall address this hon. House, I should like to say that this is a special occasion to me. I am thoroughly aware that in a real sense and to a real extent the modern history of this country has been made in this House, and therefore it is a special honour to me to have been able to become a member of this celebrated institution. Furthermore, it is a special honour to me to have been able to become a member at a time when the Chair is being occupied by you, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that you will remain in this office for many years to come.

I represent the constituency of Wonder-boom. This is a historic constituency. Major trends have occurred there, and in the past dramatic events took place there, north of the Magaliesberg. It is a special constituency with special problems, but also with unique possibilities. I am grateful for the fact that in the short while in which I have had the privilege of representing that constituency, several bodies and persons have lent a sympathetic ear to our problems. It is clear to me that they are appreciating more and more what the possibilities of that constituency are, and we have no cause to doubt that what we ask and what is reasonable will be given to us there. This constituency derives its name from a tree. It is a wild fig tree growing on the northern slope of the Magaliesberg, close to the port through which the Apies River flows to the north. Actually, it is wrong to say that it is one single tree, for it is really a composite tree. There is a central trunk, and around that trunk there are seven other trunks, and then again two of those trunks have their own clusters of trunks growing around them. Mr. Speaker, what is exceptional about this tree, is its composition and size. Every trunk stands on its own, and every trunk has its branches and leaves which do not crowd out one another at the top, but form a unit in the shape of a huge umbrella which is capable of affording shelter from rain and sun. The tree has probably had this unique development because of the fact that in bygone days a headman was buried there and the ground was regarded as sacred. I am told that sometimes, late at night, when there is no moon, strange apparitions are to be seen at that tree; but unfortunately I cannot tell the House to-day the gripping tales told in that regard, as it has only been a short while since this House launched through strict measures against wichcraft and similar phenomena.

Sir, geographically Wonderboom is situated all along the Magaliesberg for approximately 20 miles, and its boundaries also extend to the North for approximately 20 miles. Situated inside this constituency are the urban areas of Pretoria (North), Sinoville and Annlin, which are developing rapidly. The Rosslyn industrial area is situated inside this constituency. There are 63 factories which are already established and are a success. I am not saying that there are no problems involved, but that factory complex is doing well for itself. Inside the Wonderboom constituency there is, in addition, the Bon Accord Dam, which provides 93 irrigation farmers with water. They have their particular problems, especially in regard to the marketing of their fresh produce, but I want to thank the Deputy Minister of Agriculture for having addressed a meeting of our farmers a short while ago, and for having listened sympathetically to their problems and having indicated that as far as those problems were concerned, there was at least a possibility of relief being granted if not of ironing them out altogether. In our constituency we have quite a number of people falling in the lower income groups. In that regard we want to thank the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the assistance that has already been granted and for the new plans that are being devised for uplifting our people who fall into those income groups. We have quite a number of dilapidated dwellings in this constituency. In that regard we want to thank the Minister of Community Development for the envisaged planning of which he has already informed me and which we are going to implement. Then there is an exceptional township development scheme which is in the offing, i.e. the Doornpoort scheme, close to the Wonderboom Airport. This is one of the most modern township development schemes in the country, if not in the world. The scheme makes provision for 200,000 people to live there eventually. I do not think such a grand scheme has ever been undertaken. A significant feature of this scheme is that it has something for everybody, and a great deal for the middle and lower income groups. There they will be able to afford a decent dwelling, with a tiled roof and virtually in the luxury class, at a price which, I think, one would not be able to find anywhere else in this country.

Then we have on our northern boundaries —and this is also very important—the Bantu areas of Ga Rankuwa and Mabopane and, a little further north, Hammanskraal, where a new industrial complex is also being planned at Temba. Therefore, we have Bantu neighbours. This situation involves challenges for us in the sphere of human relationships, challenges which we in Wonderboom should like to accept. In this way the “wonderboom” is spreading and developing, also in the metaphorical sense. That is why it is a very great privilege to me to be able to represent this constituency.

In the second place, if you would permit me, Sir, I want to avail myself of this opportunity—and to me it looks like a suitable opportunity—to pay homage, briefly, to the Department in which I served for 17 years, i.e. the Department of Foreign Affairs. I cannot think of a more suitable way of paying this homage than to do so by briefly outlining the background to the circumstances in which this Department has to function and fulfil its task.

Mr. Speaker, the horror of the Second World War culminated with a shock into the explosion of the atomic bomb. The war stunned mankind, but also brought it to its senses. It had the effect of stunning mankind, in the knowledge that it could perpetrate such an atrocity on its fellowmen. But it also brought about reason, in that man has never again wanted to bring over himself and over others what happened during the Second World War. This return to rational thought had the effect that right-minded people all over the world applied their minds to trying to create a new formula for sparing posterity the horror of war. Thought was also given to the establishment of a new organization which had to serve as an instrument for the fulfilment of this broad objective. People pondered over the causes of that war. There was general agreement that ideologies based on racialism and the arbitrary domination of one group of human beings by another group, were odious. There was general agreement that in the future something of this nature would have to be prevented at all costs. With great idealism they looked at the under-developed world, and there was general agreement that the more developed nations of the world would have to do everything in their power to help the dormant under-developed world to rise above its humiliating poverty so that such nations, too, might develop into maturity and attain human dignity.

These were the ideals, and with those ideals 50 countries went to San Francisco in order to draft a charter so that these ideals might be furthered by means of an organization which was to be established for that purpose. South Africa was there, too. Unfortunately those high expectations showed cracks very soon afterwards. It was clear that the period of high idealism would rather imply a period of further terror and threats to mankind. General Smuts was thoroughly aware that those cracks were developing. Furthermore, on his return from New York in 1946 he realized that he could not really entertain any further illusions as to the direction which that organization would probably take. That is to say, it was soon evident that in the new cold war that had developed, with the new balance of power and the struggle which is also called the struggle for the soul of man, the smaller nations might possibly be ground to dust. Furthermore, it was evident that those high ideals which had been set for the under-developed world, would become bargaining material in the struggle between the great powers. As far as South Africa was concerned, it was clear right from the start that this new era would hold ominous things for it—ominous by virtue of its situation and the composition of its population. Accordingly, this period was characterized by continual attacks which were launched on this country, are still being launched and are becoming more and more vicious. It is obvious that in that period we needed a department which had to inform the Government in regard to those outlying fronts, which had to identify and repel frontal attacks in good time, and, at the same time, create new opportunities for forging ahead once again. Such a department was the Department of Foreign Affairs. On many occasions it had to fulfil its duty and its task alone and in silence. Over the years it has been the shock absorber of South Africa.

It is ironic that it had to be General Smuts, in fact, who participated in the formulation of the high ideals of the Charter of the United Nations, who also became the first target of the unwarranted attacks by elements and countries which, to this day, do not accept or apply some of the most elementary human rights. This whole question of human rights formed the broad front of attack against South Africa right from the start. It is the emotional front. The target is to annihilate us by means of total isolation. This front is the emotional application of the concept of human rights to show that this country cannot in any respect comply with any of the stated human rights of the post-war period.

I just want to point out briefly what this involved in this post-war period. When this Charter, which I mentioned, was formulated, there were in fact delegates who were of the opinion that a so-called “Bill of Rights” had to be formulated at that stage, but there was not enough time and it was postponed. By 1948 a great deal of progress had been made with the formulation of a treaty and a declaration in which these rights would then be taken together. One idea was that states would join in a treaty, and that it would then be binding on them. Another idea was merely to draw up a declaration.

Accordingly the Charter of U.N. itself does not contain substantive human rights, as many people think. The Charter of U.N., of which we are a member, is based on the assumption that there are certain fundamental human rights, whatever they may be. The Charter merely sets the ideal that whatever those rights may be, all states should endeavour to further those rights. In this regard the expression “without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion” is often used in the Charter. Of course, the word “distinction” in that sense does not mean mere separation in the neutral sense of the word or even in the positive sense of the word, for that would have been a contradictio in terminis. In the Charter the word “distinction” means that states should make a point of promoting these rights without discriminating against a given individual in favour of another individual solely on the basis of race, sex, language or religion. This is what those provisions mean. These are provisions which we could endorse in broad outline, but we did not commit ourselves to certain substantive rights.

Now, something happened which was perhaps regrettable in that post-war period when those rights had to be formulated. What happened was that South Africa did not vote for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The fact that it did not vote for that Declaration, did, as it were, isolate it to a certain extent right from the start, i.e. as regards those idealistic objectives. The reasons why it had misgivings about that Declaration, never came to the fore. We were simply misrepresented as being the kind of people who did not care for those idealistic objectives. It is perhaps regrettable that this was the case. In this regard I should like to make the plea that South Africa should, to a greater extent, identify itself with that Declaration to-day. I just want to read out briefly what some of those rights in the Declaration involve (translation) —

Which we Members of Parliament never have—

Mr. Speaker, these are elevated and idealistic objectives.

The reason why South Africa had misgivings at the time, was not that it was opposed to the concept of human rights. At that stage South Africa’s standpoint was stated candidly, i.e. that a vast majority of the over-all population of the world did not even enjoy the most elementary human rights. South Africa’s standpoint was: Let us start by laying solid foundations. Let us get the world into such a state that the majority of its people will at least be able to enjoy those fundamental rights before we proceed to a programme for the furtherance of more idealistic rights. That was the reason why South Africa had misgivings about the Declaration and the forms into which those rights had been moulded.

Furthermore, there were, and actually there still are, inconsistencies in those rights. A government cannot apply all of them, without, as it were, violating some of them. Therefore, there was also a question of obscurity and inconsistency. But what happened subsequently, after South Africa had in point of fact participated in the debate in which the Declaration was under discussion, was that every proposal made by South Africa for the sake of improving the Declaration, was seized upon as an opportunity for interfering in our domestic affairs and for attacking the South African Government in every possible sphere and for imputing to us the most reprehensible motives. In those circumstances and in that antagonistic atmosphere and with those reservations, the Government could not see its way clear, at that stage, to supporting the Declaration. However, I want to suggest that to-day we ought to identify ourselves with it to a greater extent. We can set those objectives. I believe that the sooner there is identification with elevated objectives, the clearer those objectives will be defined and the more earnestly we can exert ourselves for achieving those objects.

As I have already said, it is the question of human rights which forms the broad front of the attacks directed against us. Of course, changes of front are continually taking place within this framework. One moment it is our police who are under fire, the next it is our prison system, then it is our universities and schools, then our churches, then our participation in international sport; and so it will continue. All of these are facets of this broad pattern and broad frontal attack directed against us. A good example of the tactics of our opponents is the South-West Africa question. After we had emerged from it with a reasonable measure of success in 1966, another technique was tried out, i.e. terrorism. Present indications are that the matter is being taken to court again. It is clear that this is being done in order to enlist the court as a front against us once again. This merely goes to show what singleness of purpose our enemies have, how motivated they are and how careful we should be not to underestimate their venom and singleness of purpose.

In all these onslaughts I have outlined, the Department of Foreign Affairs found itself in the maelstrom and in the thick of things. Having due regard to this objective, i.e. to isolate us, the Department of Foreign Affairs has always come forward, seeking new ways and means of keeping open new doors for us for the sake of our safety and to develop our economy further through reciprocal trade links. In the meantime the insistence on severing all diplomatic relations with us, is becoming more and more vehement. All trade links with us are to be severed. The isolation objective is being worded more and more strongly. We are grateful for having such a Department and, especially, such a Minister, a Minister who does not want to seek protection for this country behind a wall of false and short-lived isolation. He is a Minister who has followed an outward-moving policy, who saw what was to be done in order to keep this country alive and not have it hemmed in on all sides and to expose it, in a psychosis of being besieged, to a coup de grace, which would have been delivered if we had fallen into isolation at that stage. We pay homage to such a Minister. We are grateful for having had him in that period. We hope that he will hold this office for a long time to come.

There is another reason why I want to pay homage to the Department of Foreign Affairs, i.e. it has thrown open its doors to the young men of South Africa. Young men are already being appointed to the most responsible positions, even as heads of our Department’s missions to countries abroad. It is a Department, therefore, which shows that in the face of the dangers threatening South Africa, it is calling upon young men, because it needs their vision and perseverance. We pay homage to the Department for that. It is characteristic of the youth that it will want to serve such a Department for the reasons I mentioned.

The onslaughts against us will probably not be discontinued. They will become worse as we make headway with the solution of our domestic problems. There were setbacks in the past, and there may be setbacks in the future. But I believe that as long as we do not hide our heads in the sand, the course we are following will be a safe one further ahead.

In conclusion I just want to refer to our relations with the other African states. This is a problem which is probably not being grasped by all our people as yet. In this regard I just want to say that to my mind there is no greater and grander task for a nation than to help its less developed neighbours. In our particular case, I cannot conceive of a greater task for us than that of vigorously assisting in the development of our neighbouring states. We must assist them vigorously, in the spirit of our Christian outlook on life and convictions. What privilege can be greater than being in a position where one can render assistance? We want to plead for this assistance to be augmented in a stronger and more vigorous manner. What grander, finer and nobler ideal and challenge can there be to our youth than that of coming forward, within the framework of our African policy, to assist in implementing these elevated objectives? We pay homage to a Minister of Foreign Affairs who has made that task his personal ideal. As some members of our older generation—be they politicians, engineers, teachers, farmers, bricklayers or whatever— may hesitate at times to act quickly or to do things which appear to be radical, I as a member of the younger generation want to say to them, “Do not hesitate, go ahead; let us do the things that have to be done; we are not inquiring about the problems, and whether they appear to be great and insurmountable; we merely want to know whether what we have to do is a condition to our continued existence in this country and whether it is a morally founded objective”. If our reply to that is “Yes”, then we must do it and we must do it now. We are fortunate to have a Prime Minister who did not sit down and mope immediately after the election, but who called upon the people to pull up their socks and to work harder. He himself took the road leading to the North, into Africa. Such actions speak a language and are of a dimension which our young people understand and appreciate.

During the election campaign it was my privilege to conduct with the (present) member for Wonderboom in Pretoria a debate on the international status of South-West. There it became clear to me that he was a person who liked debating on a high level, and for that reason I am glad that I am the one who has the opportunity to-day to welcome him here in this House and to extend to him my cordial congratulations on his excellent maiden speech. We know him as a person who is an expert on foreign affairs, and I want to assure him that we are looking forward with great interest to his future contributions in this sphere.

I should have liked to debate with the hon. member for Potchefstroom the matters he raised, but I want to come back to yesterday’s debate. There is just one observation I want to make in regard to the hon. member. I think he misunderstood the then hon. member for Kensington. Mr. Moore expressed his dissatisfaction at the disparity in the representation of Afrikaans and English-speaking persons on public bodies. For instance, he disapproved of the fact that a body such as the Publications Board, 99 per cent of whose work comprised English publications, should be predominantly composed of Afrikaans-speaking members. If matters were to continue this way, he said, there should rather be separate bodies. But he never advocated this as a policy for this side of the House. As regards the hon. member for Potchefstroom’s observations in regard to the students of Potchefstroom and the support they were giving to the National Party—well, my hon. friend sitting next to me has just handed me a report published in last Sunday’s Beeld, a report on the Pukkies and mixed sport. According to this report the students of the University of Potchefstroom undertook certain mission work in Swaziland during the past winter holidays, and then they “played a soccer match against the Swazis for the fun of it”! In view of the challenges which hon. members opposite issued in regard to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), they should now tell us whether this match of the Pukkies also comes within the framework of the policy of their party.

One of the pities of the debate as we have had it up to now, is that to a large extent the two parties are talking at cross-purposes. We on our part are accusing the Government of losing sight of the economic realities of South Africa, and in exchange the Government is accusing us of losing sight of the race and population realities of the country. In that way we are arguing at cross-purposes. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance did make an attempt at bringing the two ends together, by pleading for a “balanced approach”, but there is one major flaw which we find in the arguments advanced on the Government side, i.e., too much theory and too little of the practical realities. They are fond of referring to policy and ideals. That is right; a political party must have a policy and ideals. But they are talking like people who are not in power; they are not talking like people who have the government of the country in their hands and who, as such, can implement what they are advocating. On the contrary; they are talking like people who are sitting in the Opposition and who are setting ideals which they will implement if they should get hold of the political power. This is where our problem with hon. members opposite lies. If one is in power, surely one cannot talk all day about what one wants to do one day. The Government has now been in power for more than 22 years, and lays claim to having received a mandate to carry out a specific task—in fact, to having received that mandate from the electorate on as many as six occasions. It suggests that it would amount to breach of faith if it did not carry out that mandate. But what do we find them doing? We find that their opinion-makers, their editors and commentators are becoming more and more impatient and are urging the Government day after day to display more energy and to convert their convictions into practice. Here in Southern Africa Britain granted “separate freedom” to the Swazi, the Tswana and the Sotho who were under its care. The same thing happened to Malawi. To these countries it granted “separate freedom”, and I am using the word between quotation marks. Nobody is going to tell me that our Tswana, Xhosa and Zulu are people of a weaker calibre than those people are. On the contrary; generally speaking our Bantu have reached a more advanced stage of development than was the case in those countries. At present we even have diplomatic relations with those countries on a high level, and along with them we are taking our seats in the council chambers of the world. But so far this Government has failed to carry out its mandate, a mandate they claim to have received at six consecutive elections already. It has been advancing one weak excuse after the other as to why it cannot do so and why we cannot get any further than we are at the moment. In the sixty years of our political existence there has never been a government which was and, to a large extent, still is in a stronger position to-day than is the case with this very Government. As a matter of fact. I do not think that any government will ever find it very easy again to get into as strong a position as this Government was and, to a certain extent, still is at the moment. Its position has, it is true, begun to weaken, and the only thing the future holds in store for it is decline. But here we have the Government, the strongest Government South Africa has had in sixty years; it cannot complain of not having had the time, it cannot complain of not having the support of the electrorate, and it cannot complain of not having had Parliament behind it. On the contrary; for years it has had behind it the support of two-thirds of this Parliament. What do we find as far as its mandate is concerned? The only conclusion at which I can arrive and at which any reasonable person must arrive, is that either of two things is true. Either the Government does not in actual fact have the will to carry out its mandate, or, it cannot do so and its plans are not practical politics. It must be either of these two, and I want to see which of these two alternatives is applicable.

The “mandate” which the Government has, as I interpret it—whether or not the electorate interprets it that way is another matter, which I shall leave at that—is as follows: That the country has to be divided between the Whites and the non-Whites on a geopolitical basis, i.e. a territorial-political basis, so that each population group will be politically independent of the others and be in a position to govern and realize itself in an unfettered manner. That is the way I interpret its “mandate”, and if I am wrong, I hope hon. members on the other side will tell me so, but I accept the silence over there as being an affirmative reply. Now, the Government has given this objective or mandate the name of separate development or separate freedom or multinational development, whatever one wishes to call it. Now, yesterday afternoon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put forward a significant suggestion to this House and issued a challenge to the Government. It was a challenge to the Government, but of course, as is the case with all challenges, there are two sides to a challenge. It also places the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party under a moral obligation in the event of that challenge being accepted. Let me first say in passing that the challenge concerns the relations between Whites and Blacks in South Africa. As far as we can see, the Government has already admitted that in respect of the Coloureds and the Indians separate development is actually a kind of cul-de-sac, and that along that course they will at some stage or another in the future, either have to turn back, as they have just done in the case of the Chinese, or have to start thinking afresh.

For the moment, therefore, let us set aside the position of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Chinese; what is involved here, is the relations between Whites and Blacks. The Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council is a council whose members are appointed by the Prime Minister himself from the cream of the economists of South Africa; it is therefore a council in which he has confidence, otherwise he would not appoint it; he selected the members himself. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition proposed that this council should make two estimates in the light of the latest facts, for obviously the facts have changed since the days of the Tomlinson Commission; and the more important of these two estimates that are to be made by this body, is that it should tell us what the economic requirements are of the Government’s political policy of ethnical fragmentation. In other words, the two ends are to be brought together; a balanced picture is to be created. The political plan of the Government is to be placed next to the economic requirements of the plan. I do not think any request to the Government can be more reasonable than this one, for we have to hear all day about the difficult sacrifices which the nation will have to make in the interest of its “self-preservation”. Therefore, all we on the Opposition side are asking the Government, is this: Stop talking about the difficult sacrifices. You are in power and you have the power. Lay the whole plan on the table. Be honest and frank and tell us what the extent of the sacrifices is and how much time you need for implementing those sacrifices, and then act like a Government which has the courage of its convictions; act like people who have the reins of government in their hands and who want to carry into effect what they stand for.

I said that in my opinion such a challenge also placed the Opposition under a moral obligation, and as I see it, the moral obligation under which the Leader of the Opposition will be, is that, no matter what his own strong opinions on this matter may be, he will have to be willing, since he is the one who asked the Prime Minister to appoint that body to act as the arbitrator, to accept the ruling of that arbitrator. I think that in that case he will have to be prepared, if necessary, to change his opinions and to adapt them to that ruling. As the challenger he will even have to be prepared to lend his support to the Government on this point of policy, in the event of the survey made by the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council showing that the Government’s political plan and its economical requirements will, within a reasonable period of time, be practical politics. I do not want to act on the assumption that the Government is going to decline this offer and challenge. Perhaps they need a little more time for looking into the matter; perhaps it is right that they should consult the Leader of that Party, but I say that if after 22 years of being in power the Government is not willing or able to submit to the nation the full consequences of its policy, we shall have no alternative other than to assume that in fact it does not have any profound faith and confidence in the practicability of its policy.

Sir, one thing is certain: We cannot go on as we are doing at this stage, where the Government and the country are actually falling between two stools. The political plan of the Government is simply making no headway, and in the meantime we are imposing one obstruction and restriction after the other on the economy of South Africa, which may have a serious effect on our future. As far as the Bantu homelands are concerned, I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development this, and I am saying this to his credit: This man is working himself to a standstill; he is working overtime. Whenever one takes a look, one finds him and his Department engaged in handing out symbols of authority and killing the fatted calf at some place or other. We have no objection against that, but our charge is that he is doing everything but the one thing which is absolutely essential if he wants to have any hope of his plans being successful, i.e. to develop the Bantu areas, inside the Bantu territories, economically to such an extent that the people will be able to make a living there. All of us here know that at the moment those areas cannot even retain the natural increase in population there, and for the umpteenth time I want to tell the hon. the Minister that his agency basis is in fact better than nothing—I shall concede that—but he is going to achieve very little through it. Sir, this is a weak form of socialism, and any person who thinks that one can have in a State, in one part, weak socialism and, side by side with that, the capitalist system, and that investors will be drawn to that part whilst they have the freedom of the capitalist areas and the neighbouring areas which accept the capitalist system, is living in a dream-world. No, Sir, people would sooner invest in the other areas than do so in the area where a system of weak socialism is obtaining.

Fifteen years ago already the Tomlinson Commission, which was comprized of dedicated people, amongst others Mr. Daan De Wet Nel who sat in this House and who signed that report, told the Government that it would not get anywhere if it were not prepared—one can protect the land rights of the people there, as is being done in Lesotho—to afford free white capital the opportunity of entering those areas and helping those people to develop. If this is not done, it will not work. The Government regularly comes forward with the excuse that this would entail “exploitation”. Sir, I want to read out to you what Mr. Jan S. Marais of the Trust Bank very recently said in Rhodesia to Rhodesia as a young country; he said—

Mr. Speaker, this is the way the capitalist system work. A developing nation will simply have to serve its period of apprenticeship with the developed nation. If it wants to learn, it has to take lessons from nations which have reached a more advanced stage of development. Under-developed nations cannot teach themselves. Sir, amongst the Whites, when the Afrikaners were by and large a rural people, they had to gain their business knowledge from the English-speaking people who had an extensive commercial and industrial background, which the Afrikaners did not have at first. That was the course they followed in order to become to-day businessmen in their own right and to control large enterprises, although, like other nations, the Afrikaners also started at the bottom. Sir, this is the case with every nation that wants to go ahead, and that is why one has dynamic development to-day—and I am saying this in relations to us—in a territory such as Swaziland as against a position of no progress worth mentioning in our own Bantu territories. The lack of economic development in those territories, affects the political possibilities automatically. In any case, the possibilities are limited. If one reads what persons such as Prof. Jan Moolman recently said at the Sabra conference, and he is a person who supports Sabra’s policy, one will see that this charge is that no progress is being made. I do not want to quote much of what he said, for hon. members themselves will probably have read it in Die Beeld.

That was not his charge.

This is one of the most important points he mentioned. For instance, he mentioned that it was happening at Rosslyn that “the entire population of the homeland was moving as closely as possible to Pretoria”, in order to be close to the border industries outside Pretoria. Therefore, the border area is in the process of wrecking the whole concept of the development of the Bantu territories themselves. He was referring here to Bantu cities which are without an economic nucleus and which are in the process of becoming large, black locations.

How are those homelands moving closer? Just explain that to the House.

If I understand this correctly, he said that the people were moving closer to the border because they wanted to live as closely as possible to the industries in which they were employed. Therefore, the whole heart of the homeland is being lured away.

There is no such thing. The hon. member does not understand a thing.

We have been saying this for 15 years already, and we are not the only ones who are saying it. Sabra, Mr. De Wet Nel and every person who has made a study of Bantu affairs in South Africa are saying that unless the Government is prepared to allow free white capital and to forget about whether or not it is going to become multi-racial there, there will not be progress. If this is to save one, one is to accept it that way. Unless the hon. the Minister does this, their whole plan, even with the best will in the world, will get nowhere. It is time the Government took a stand. It should prove to us that it is taking its plans seriously, for it does have the power. If it wants to carry out these plans, it should do so now so that we may start with the reconstruction of those parts of South Africa which are left.

I find it interesting that the hon. member for Malmesbury said here yesterday that this could be done because England had done so with Lesotho, Swaziland and Botswana. Why, then, is it not being done? When he speaks again, I want to ask him to tell us, if his policy is feasible, why it is not being implemented. This brings one time after time to the conclusion that either the Government does not want to do it, because it does in actual fact not have the necessary faith in its plans, or that it cannot do it. The members on that side of the House must tell us which of the two it is.

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance told us that we had to have regard to multi-nationality. Who is denying that we are a multinational country? Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Information tried to differentiate between multi-racialism and multi-nationalism, but his publications teem with the term “multiracial South Africa”. All it means, is that there is more than one race in South Africa. Does anybody want to deny that? Whether the hon. the Minister says that there is more than one race or that there is more than one nation in South Africa, does not make any difference whatever. If there is supposedly such a terrible difference, then the hon. the Minister should explain it to us. But let us leave that argument now. I am prepared to accept that we are a multi-national country. We accept the fact fully, and we admit that multi-nationality presents us with certain problems. We admit that there is diversity, and we admit that a position has to be created where people will be able to realize themselves without the one dominating the other. That is in fact what our concept of a federal system is based on. The hon. the Minister also referred to self-preservation. Who on earth is against that?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member says that various nations can live together without the one dominating the other. Now I want to know from the hon. member whether the eight members whom the United Party grants them in this House, would not amount to domination?

That hon. member is confusing leadership with domination. If domination is leadership, it would mean that his party leader is dominating him, and that I do not accept.

That is the weakest reply I have heard from you yet.

The hon. member does not see the whole matter. He should see the whole picture, and I shall give it to the hon. member now. That hon. member is merely presenting one part of our policy. The hon. the deputy Minister referred to self-preservation. Who is against it? Every person wants to preserve himself, and everybody has sympathy with a nation that wants to preserve itself. However, the danger is that if we want to try to realise ourselves at the cost of another man’s self-preservation, we shall be headed for a clash which will mean the end of us. That is the crux of the matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister called attention to the safety valve which they have, i.e. the Bantu territories. However, that is a very limited safety valve. Our party’s safety valve is much better. We are the only party in this House that stands for large-scale and dynamic political and economic development of the Bantu territories, with all the available means.

That is not true.

When the Tomlinson Report was published, this party accepted the broad principles of their recommendation. Yesterday the hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized it again. Hon. members opposite are not getting anywhere with the development of the Bantu homelands. This is also my reply to the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who is always presenting an incomplete version of the policy of the Opposition. We are the only party that stands for large-scale political and economic development in the Bantu territories. We are giving priority to development in the Bantu territories themselves. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said yesterday that we were standing for political development. He said repeatedly that the Bantu territories could develop much further than a province, until each of them could form a local authonomous unit within a federal state. From there one can move to a point where one can lay down the ultimate relationship of each territory to the rest of South Africa. Hon. members opposite are talking about a safety valve, but we are the party that has a real safety valve. The Government’s safety valve is chiefly a safety valve on paper only.

In conclusion I want to say that, no matter how we argue, the Government of this country has a duty towards everybody who is living here. We are entitled to look after the interests of the Whites, but it is also our duty to ensure that every man in this country has employment, that he has food to eat, that he has a decent house to live in and that he has a chance to make progress. It would be another matter if he were placed in an independent country; then he would no longer be part of South Africa. He must have a chance to make progress, just as I have the chance to do so. That is the fact we shall have to face. As far as the Whites are concerned, we shall have to set aside some of our old imperialist attitudes. We shall have to shake them off. We as Whites are entitled to look after our own interests, but we shall have to realise that White interests and progress are not our only duty, but that there is a scale in South Africa which has to be balanced. It is incumbent on both parties to rouse less fear amongst our people. The fear of “integration” is a totally exaggerated one. Hon. members opposite are confusing contact with integration. Look, for instance, at our police service where Whites and Blacks are working together day and night. Is that integration? It is contact, but it is not integration. On our borders black policemen and white policemen are fighting side by side against the terrorists. Is that integration, or is it co-operation? One could mention many such examples; think of the position in the Navy. The Government is sending Whites to the Transkei to work there under non-Whites. I merely mention this; I do not criticize it. Look at the dualism here.

Hon. members opposite are always making a fuss about “integration”, whereas under any policy contact is inevitable. We have a duty to educate our people to be less afraid of this spectre of integration, and to point out to them that contact is necessary and that there can be contact without integration. If contact meant integration, there could not have been an Afrikaner nation to-day, for we are continually in contact with English-speaking people. If that were the case, we would have lost our identity and disappeared. In that case there would not have been people such as Malays and Griquas within the framework of the Coloured community.

There is no reason why there ought not to be employment for everybody in South Africa. Why should it be feared that the one will push out the other? It is our view that in a prosperous country such as South Africa one will find that as people work and improve their standards of living, so new employment opportunities will arise. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfair and unjust of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to accuse this Government of not having the will or the ability to carry out its policy. The hon. member then drew a comparison. He said that England had had the courage of its convictions to grant independence to the three Protectorates adjoining the Republic of South Africa. If there was ever a government which had the courage and the will to carry out its policy, then it is this Government. But this Government will not allow itself to have the pace at which we must progress, dictated to it, because what happened to England’s courage? It was the Republic of South Africa that had to save those three independent states from starvation. If it had not been for this country, where would they have been to-day? I think it is unfair and unjust of him to have said that. This Government does have the courage and the will, and it will carry out its policy. It has the wisdom to do so without allowing them to dictate to us how rapidly we must pursue that course. This Government will pursue the course in a planned way as it has been doing over the years. Hon. members will see that those plans will in future be carried out. But I want to say to the hon. member that he will be furnished with very thorough replies from this side of the House to all the questions which he put, starting this afternoon.

I should very much like to return to the debate on the manpower shortage in South Africa. At one stage here in South Africa, there was a relatively strong Labour Party. After the provincial election of 1914 this Labour Party governed the Transvaal Province. At the general election of 1920 the Labour Party returned 21 members to this Parliament for the first time, to represent them in the House of Assembly. That was the most successful period of the Labour Party in the Republic of South Africa. Why was the Labour Party so successful in those years? It was successful because the white worker on the Witwatersrand gave that Party his support. Since then various factors caused the downfall of this party. The Labour Party subsequently became estranged from the workers of the Witwatersrand. It was incorrectly orientated. The workers of the Witwatersrand were no longer able to support it, and the white worker no longer felt at home in that party. In reality it subsequently developed into a mixed party. The white worker of the Witwatersrand and the white worker of the Republic lost all faith in that party. What did the white worker do then? For a time he threw in his lot with the United Party. The white worker found, however that he was beginning to lose faith in the United Party as well. Do you know, Sir, why the white worker began to lose faith in the United Party? It is because he found that that party to-day is a “Jake” and a “Mitch” party. They developed the art of “double-talk”. They developed the art of “double-talk” into a fine art. Just as the white worker had completely rejected and destroyed the Labour Party, they also rejected the United Party. That is the main reason why the United Party has been sitting on that side of the House for 21 years now. I want to tell them that if they carry on as they have been doing, they will be eternally rejected by the white worker. What will ultimately happen then, Sir? It will mean the total elimination of the United Party, because the white worker hates this never ending double-talk. The one minute they say one thing and the next they say something quite different.

What happened in Turffontein?

I now want to take the hon. member on a wager that we are going to win back Turffontein at the provincial election. Since 1948 the white worker has found his niche in the National Party. The National Party policy of separate development and work reservation which has been carried out on a planned and purposeful basis over the past twenty-two years, has caused the white worker to feel more and more at home in the National Party. That policy has inspired confidence in the worker and it has also guaranteed him and his family a safe and prosperous future. The white worker realizes to-day that his only refuge and his only true patron is the National Party, because the National Party protects him in his sphere of employment. The National Party looks after his interests. I also want to say to the hon. member for Hillbrow that the National Party is not prepared to throw the white worker to the money-wolves.

As a result of this positive and planned mode of action of the National Party since 1948. South Africa is at present experiencing one of its most flourishing periods in its history. This economic prosperity has ensured that our population, including the white worker, is maintaining one of the highest standards of living in the world. This economic prosperity was secured for the inhabitants of the Republic because the National Party Government has since 1948 made it possible, through provision in the Industrial Conciliation Act, for work reservation to be applied in industries if there is any possibility that the white worker may be supplanted. The United Party and the hon. member knows that they reject work reservation completely. The Leader of the Opposition has said again now that they will repeal section 77. In Die Myn-worker this week an appeal was made to the Minister of Labour which read as follows: “Reserve all work for Whites in the mining industry”. I am asking the hon. member what they will do. Are they going to reject this appeal completely? Or what are they going to do? Will they reject this appeal by the Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union completely? The white workers want to know what they are going to do in regard to this matter. If this trade union does not want to go along with them, what are they going to do? I am asking the hon. member for Hillbrow to give a reply. The white worker is demanding a guarantee that he will toe protected, and only this Government can give the white worker that guarantee. This National Party Government is proud of the labour code which it has established over the past 22 years. It is a labour code which has brought about labour peace and satisfaction among our labour force, among the Whites as well as the non-Whites. It is a labour code which has made South Africa one of the foremost countries in the world. It is a labour code which is envied by other countries which are being afflicted by strikes and industrial unrest. This labour code of controlled employment of the non-Whites, and everything which has been built up over the past 22 years, the United Party wants to abolish with one stroke of the pen. They want to create chaos in our industrial life to-day. If we consider everything that has happened and all these voices which are being raised about the manpower shortage, while the National Party has over the past 22 years created for us a labour code which has brought us labour peace, we find that everyone now wants, quite suddenly, to undo this labour code. One can open any newspaper at any time of the day and you will come across, on the front pages of the English-language newspapers, this tremendous outcry about a manpower shortage.

What does the Chamber of Commerce have to say?

We want to concede that there is a shortage of manpower. We do not want to talk that away. But can we follow the policy which those hon. members want to follow? Is there really such a tremendous shortage of manpower? Is it not in fact the case that there is a tremendous maldistribution of manpower in our industries to-day? I want to say to-day that this manpower problem is a very thorny problem. It is a problem which must be handled with tact and understanding. We must try to find a solution to this problem, but we must find people who will really work on this problem and not merely people who will try to solve the problem with a profit motive. That is the most important task we have to accomplish.

Do Anton Rupert and Tommy Miller not want to make a profit?

I want to say to that hon. member to-day: In Heaven’s name do not drag this manpower problem into the political arena. That is where you are taking it. You are dragging this manpower problem into the political arena. If you do that, the 1922 strike will seem like child’s play in comparison. The white trade unions support the policy of controlled employment of the Whites and the Bantu in these industries, and we will pursue that course. What is this Government doing to help solve this problem? Legislation was passed here last year which made provision to make it possible for all the various industrial councils to initiate training schemes in order to train these people more effectively. That hon. member has a great influence in Press circles, and I want to appeal to him to ask his newspaper friends to write every day in the newspapers that the industrialists should come forward with dynamic training schemes. There are 114,000 Whites who are to-day working as operators. Why are the industrialists not coming forward with a dynamic training scheme to train these 114,000 white workers? There are today more than 100 industrial councils in South Africa. If each one of them can train 200 white workers as artisans each year, we could tackle and solve this problem. First look at the building industry and the metal industry. They are maintaining their growth rates of 9 and 10 per cent. We know that there is a shortage of manpower. Why cannot they lower their growth rate? The hon. the Minister makes concessions to these industrialists every day, so that more and more people can be employed. But if these industrialists were to come forward and create opportunities for the semi-skilled white labourers so that they could receive training, there would be no shortage of manpower. But hon. members on that side of the House want to ignore these 114,000 semi-skilled white labourers. They want to train the Bantu. But if we want to help the Bantu advance, let us first act in concert, so that these 114,000 semi-skilled white labourers can be afforded an opportunity of being properly trained, so that they can become artisans. When these people have all been trained and are no longer semi-skilled, we can discuss these other matters.

I want to say to that hon. member that the Government has in fact established the facilities for the training of these people. There are apprentice schools, there are technical colleges, where the Government has at great expense established the facilities for the training of these people. Why do the industrialists not come forward with a dynamic scheme so that these people can be assisted? No, they want to take the easy way out by training the Bantu. The Opposition are in fact the prompters in this regard. These people are being overlooked and are not being afforded the opportunity of being trained, and they are the greatest culprits.

I should like to make a very serious appeal to hon. members of this House. White administrative workers are controlled by the Shops and Offices Act and the factory workers are controlled by the Industrial Conciliation Act. Similarly the mineworkers are controlled by the Mines and Works Act. All these various workers have contributed to the wonderful development of the Republic of South Africa. At present there are 12 public holidays Certain workers receive full payment for all these 12 holidays. Others are paid for less, and yet others receive full payment for approximately three days. These holidays usually fall just before or just after a week-end. If we look at our accident rate we see that in 1969 1,715 Whites were killed in motor accidents on our roads. I want this afternoon to advocate to the hon. the Minister of Finance that a commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate the possibility of reducing the number of these public holidays. These public holiday are a bad thing, because people do not really make use of them in order to rest, but use them to drive long distances. [Interjections.] No, hon. members need not express their amazement at this. These public holidays should not be granted on the dates on which they fall, but should in fact be added to the workers’ annual leave.

This is a new policy.

No. it is not a new policy. It is a positive idea which I am presenting to hon. members of this House. That hon. member want a solution, but he does not want to listen. It often happens that the office worker takes the day off, but the man in the factory has to work. They cannot work together as a team therefore because the one is away while the other has to work. Let us treat all our workers alike. This will increase the productivity of the workers of the Republic of South Africa.

On this occasion I should like to say something about the world population explosion and its effect on us here in South Africa. You are aware, Sir, that the world population, including our own. is increasing tremendously. Someone has said that in the same way in which there is an uncontrolled increase of cells in cancer, there is an uncontrolled increase in the number of human beings is the world to-day. At the moment the world population amounts to slightly more than 3.600 million, and it is increasing at an average of 2 per cent a year, accumulatively. This will mean that within 35 years the population of the world will have doubled itself, so that by the year 2000 it will total 7,500 million. If one looks at the increase curve, it is interesting to note that the increase does not follow a straight line and that the periods within which the world’s population is doubling itself are becoming shorter. From 1900 it took 65 years before the world population doubled itself. Before 1900 the period was 150 years. Therefore we may conclude that as we go along, the world population will double itself within shorter periods. To form an idea of how rapidly this increase is taking place, we can merely note that 250 children are born every minute of the day and night. Over against that, 120 people die every minute of the day and night, i.e. there is a net gain of 130. Calculated on an hourly basis, we find that the net gain is 7,000. For one day it is 187,000—equal to the white population of a city like Durban. It is also interesting that every 102 days the increase in the world population equals the total population of South Africa, White and non-White. It is estimated that we have 20 million people in the Republic at present. Unfortunately the latest census figures are not yet available. Our population in South Africa is going to double itself within 30 years, which will mean that within 30 years we will have to accommodate between 40 million and 42 million people. At the moment our white population amounts to approximately 3.7 million. By the year 2000 it will amount to approximately 6.4 million.

Another aspect of the population explosion is the migration of people. Whereas only 5 per cent of the world population lived in cities in 1800, 70 per cent are living in cities to-day. This tendency is noticeable in South Africa as well—in fact, it is an economic tendency which applies throughout the world.

This tremendous increase in the population will make great demands on the human race in future. To-day we are talking about manpower shortages and we do so in terms of a shortage of numbers. But in actual fact the reverse is true. As the numbers increase, a greater shortage of trained people is arising throughout the world. It is this small percentage that must do the planning, the thinking and the designing for all the other millions. Therefore great demands are going to be placed on this number of trained people, in South Africa as well, over the next 30 years. In this regard I am thinking for example, of services which must be provided. Here we must bear in mind that as people become urbanized, it becomes increasingly more difficult to provide everyone with basic services, services such as telecommunications, roads, education, and others.

Something which lies very close to the heart of our agriculturalists is the tendency that the increase in food production is not keeping pace with the increase in the population. At this stage, the number of people who are underfed already constitutes 56 per cent of the world’s population, and by underfed I mean that they do not take in 2.400 calories a day, which the World Health Organization regards as the normal quantity of food which a human being needs. Of this number of underfed people, 38 per cent are living in Africa alone. In order to prove that the world already has a shortage of food, I may merely mention that of the 60 million people who die every year, between 10 and 20 million die as a result of famine and malnutrition.

South Africa is a part of Africa and, as I have said, 38 per cent of Africa’s population is underfed. In the light of this we can say that there is a great future for our agriculturalists, because within a few years the food requirements of Africa alone will toe doubled. At the moment the population of Africa already amounts to 340 million.

As far as housing is concerned, these same demands are going to be made on us during the next 30 years. A calculation which was made showed that if the present tendencies are maintained and the present rate of expansion continues, the whole of the Vaal Triangle, Pretoria-Johannesburg-Vereeniging, will be one continuous urban area within 30 years. The services which will be required because of this, are going to place great demands especially on the white man, because he is the one who has the knowledge and the skill to provide these services. This means that we cannot afford not to train people whom we can train. On the contrary. We will have to do everything in our power not only to train every available person, but also to ensure that the right person is trained for the right position. There is probably nothing more tragic than someone Who occupies a position where he does not belong and in which he therefore cannot give his best.

This brings me to a request, i.e. that we must develop the principle of differentiation further in our schools. One can quite rightly say that it is better to be a good bricklayer than a bad parson. So far we have achieved a tremendous amount of success with differentiation in our high schools. Here I am referring especially to differentiation within a subject. In other words, there has been differentiation in respect of the mental capacity of a child on three levels. In addition, there has been differentiation within the academic direction. Some people are linguistically inclined, others are mathematically inclined. But a direction which is not yet receiving enough attention, is horizontal differentiation, i.e. differentiation among commercial education, technical education and academic education.

Sir, the problem which we have in the Transvaal, and which I particularly have in my constituency, is that the towns are not large enough to justify separate commercial and technical schools. There are enough academic high schools within everybody’s reach, but I do not blame any person who does not want to send his child 100 or 200 miles away in order to receive commercial or technical education, because we all like to have our children at home. And it is true that once a pupil has attended the school in his home town and it becomes apparent from his results that he is not suited to the academic direction, that child definitely does not easily change his field of study, because then he must move as well. In terms of Act No. 41 of 1967, the Educational Services Act, a high school pupil may take only two commercial subjects in an academic school. The factual position is that there are many academic high schools in the Transvaal which teach four commercial subjects, but as a result of this restriction in the Act a child may take only two commercial subjects although all his aptitudes lie in a commercial direction, and I believe this is to the detriment of the education of that child. I want to ask that we should remove this unnecessary barrier which has been placed there, so that we may allow this horizontal differentiation to come into its own, because we cannot afford to make a bad academic of someone who would perhaps have been able to realize himself and would have been an asset in the commercial sphere, and vice versa. We must allow our ordinary academic high schools to offer a wide variety of subjects.

In our pupil population there is an obvious group which must follow the academic direction, an obvious group which must follow the technical direction, and an obvious group which must follow the commercial direction. They show themselves immediately. In between, however, there is a large group of people in respect of whom one cannot determine so easily in what direction they should be sent; and the direction in which they are then sent, into which they necessarily have to be sent because of the fact that no local facilities exist or are available, can mean success or failure for them in their lives. It is very close to my conscience that with these aptitude tests and the direction in which we want to send the child, we must provide the proper facilities to realize this, for, as I have already said, we very definitely cannot afford to place people in the wrong field in South Africa. We need everybody’s strength, energy and enthusiasm in order to build up our country.

But many people are against differentiation. However, it is a law of nature. It is an act of the Creator, because the Book says that we have not all received the same talents. We have people with sharp brains, brilliant academics; this is their talent, whether in the linguistic or the mathematical field. Others have fewer talents, but let us afford everyone the opportunity to develop his talent or aptitude to the full.

Another matter I should like to mention is this. There is an element of snobbishness among our people in that children following academic courses of study tend to look down on children who receive a commercial or technical education. Since we can make these schools comprehensive now and will have all the children under one roof, that type of snobbishness will disappear and the stigma attached to technical training will also disappear in time. I believe the most simple work and the most difficult work to be done in our country are both important. There is no such thing as important or unimportant work, but in the work we are doing everyone is rendering a service and building the future of our lovely country. If we consider that there are only 3.7 million Whites in Africa and just over 300 million non-Whites, and that it rests on the shoulders of this 3.7 millions to find a solution to all these problems and to create living conditions and working conditions so that there will be a place in the sun for everyone in Africa and, by so doing, to ensure peace and security, I want to tell you. Sir, that in my opinion the most important task we have here and in which we can invest our money is definitely education. I also want to thank the Government for the increased amount voted for national education.

Mr. Speaker, my very first task in this House is a pleasant one, namely to congratulate the hon. member for Lydenburg, who sits with me on the same bench and is a new M.P. like myself, on his debut in this House. I think it was very clear to us that he had fully acquainted himself with the subject he wanted to discuss, and I want to congratulate his constituency on their choice and express the hope that he will have a long and happy stay in this House.

At the outset and on behalf of my constituency I should like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to my predecessor in this House. He served this constituency with dedication and zeal for almost ten years, and it is our prayer that he and his wife will be happy overseas and will be and remain worthy ambassadors of our country.

Previous speakers have referred to the well-considered Budget speech presented by the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to associate myself with these views and I am especially pleased that the hon. the Minister, inspired by the wise Solomon, saw fit not to impose an additional levy on vehicles in the price range below R3,000. Sir, I want to assure you that a vehicle is a necessity and not a luxury in South-West Africa. I believe that this applies as much to all farmers throughout South Africa.

I think it was clear from all the speculations which preceded this Budget that no one expected a Father Christmas Budget. As a newcomer to this House, still strange and inexperienced, I give you the assurance that I shall try to serve my constituency to the best of my ability and within the rules of this House. It is a privilege for me to be here and a greater privilege to be an elected representative of South-West Africa, and in trying to introduce my constituency briefly to you, I find the question arising in my mind: Do hon. members of this House know that faraway country South-West Africa? Only when one gets to know South-West Africa, its vastness and its people, do you realize why the people are working and building with such love and enthusiasm.

The Omaruru constituency, named after the oldest district in the constituency—incidentally, Omaruru is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year—extends over an area of approximately 45,000 square miles. It starts in the far north where the Kaokoveld borders on the Kunene River, the land where the Himbas and the Chimbas live, a very beautiful area. Further south there is a rural community, mainly karakul and cattle farmers, and the towns Kamanjab, Welwitchia, Otjihando, a large part of the Outjo District, Kalkfeld, Omaruru, Karibib, Wilhelmtal, Usalkos and the Khomas Hochland. These people are at present waging a tremendous struggle against the drought, and it is only their love of the soil which is inspiring them and keeping them full of hope. It is a fact that in South-West Africa 205,000 head of small stock and 64,000 head of cattle have already been removed from farms and placed in emergency grazing areas. We often find the mother alone on the farm with the smaller children, while the older children are at boarding school and the father is with his stock somewhere in an emergency grazing area. I should like to pay tribute to these people, because they are the backbone of the country. Their perseverance and faith in the future are truly an inspiration to others.

A few days ago the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development saw fit to make seven more farms available for emergency grazing in the Usakos area. I can assure the hon. the Minister that we appreciate the attitude displayed towards us and the way in which our representations have been heard. On behalf of the farmers who will benefit from this, I thank the hon. the Minister in anticipation.

Furthermore, there are Walvis Bay and Swakopmund, which are separated from the rest of this constituency by the Namib Desert. This is the oldest known desert in the world, with a rainfall, measured over the past 46 years, of only 16 mm a year. This west coast is an angler’s paradise without peer. Swakopmund is the popular holiday resort of South-West Africa, and 20 miles from it lies Walvis Bay, which politically, forms part of the Republic of South Africa and which is 374 square miles in extent. Walvis Bay has the largest fishing industry in the Republic of South Africa. Last year exports of all fish products earned foreign currency to the value of R39 million. At the moment there is great concern about these fishing grounds as a result of the appearance of the two South African factory ships in these fishing waters. However, I do not think this is the proper time to discuss that, but I hope I shall get a subsequent opportunity to do so. Walvis Bay already boasts a total population of 20,000, and I want to make special mention of the large number of young boys who are performing their national service there. These boys, approximately 1,000 of them, have been there for several years already, and they have become the pride of Walvis Bay. It is a pleasure to see them marching smartly under arms. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the officers who are in charge of the camp there on the achievement that no complaint has ever been made about one of these boys in all these years. I want to tell the parents here and elsewhere whose sons sometimes have to remain in Walvis Bay for six months, that they need not be concerned about them, because I they are in good hands.

Walvis Bay also boasts a large harbour. This harbour is modern and well-equipped and surpassed the harbour of East London two years ago in regard to the tonnage of cargo handled. The dry bed of the Kuiseb River provides Walvis Bay and Swakopmund with an adequate water supply. It is interesting to note that, as a result of a research programme undertaken by the South-West Africa Administration in collaboration with the C.S.I.R., it was determined that the capacity of this Kuiseb Delta is equal to two thirds of the capacity of the Vaal Dam.

Although it was discovered by Bartholomew Diaz as far back as 1447, it was first annexed, only on 12th December, 1878, by Holland. Twelve years later, Walvis Bay was annexed for a second time, on this occasion by Britain, and it was administered by a Cape magistrate under British authority until 1884. In terms of Act 35 of 1884 of the Cape Parliament, Walvis Bay became part of the Cape Colony. In terms of the Act of Union of 1910, Walvis Bay became part of the Union under the name the “South African Territory of Walvis Bay”. The inhabitants of Walvis Bay voted for the candidates in the Green Point constituency. (The hon. member for Green Point can take note of this. If he should need his old voters later, we can consider the matter.) Act 24 of 1922 of the Union Parliament made provision for the Walvis Bay harbour and vicinity to be administered as part of the mandated Territory of South-West Africa from 1st October, 1922. Thus Walvis Bay became an adopted child. Like any adopted child, Walvis Bay sometimes longs to be near its own parents. I want to say at once that we cannot wish for better foster-parents than South-West Africa. The hon. the Minister of Transport’s attention is drawn to the fact that he can help a great deal to realize the ideal of Walvis Bay by simply seeing to it that we are linked up with the inland service of South African Airways.

The Omaruru constituency, together with the rest of South-West Africa, is grateful to the Government for all the help and assistance given to us, and the helping hand over many years. We are thinking in particular of the World Court case, to which an hon. member referred earlier to-day. This case was won by perseverance, determination and an able legal team. When the verdict was announced, there was no exuberant joy in South-West Africa, there were no fires of joy, but there was quiet gratitude, gratitude towards the Government and its legal team and above all to the Almighty, who controls the weal and woe of peoples and nations. We think of the appointment of the Hon. Deputy Minister Van der Watt as Administrator of South-West Africa. He is a man who has already achieved a great deal there and who knows South-West Africa and its people. We think of the appointment of the leader of our party in South-West Africa as a Deputy Minister. We in South-West Africa know him. We know his zeal and capabilities in the same way as he knows South-West Africa with its ups and downs. We know that he will never leave you in the lurch, and when words fail us, we simply say to you, “Thank you”. Whenever the venomous attitude against South-West Africa increases in intensity and the name of South-West Africa echoes through the council chambers of the world, our eyes will turn to this Government and also to this House. I want to emphasize that our eyes will turn to both sides of this House and we shall live in the hope that this House will never be divided when South-West Africa appeals to you. We in South-West Africa are facing the future with confidence, faith, hope and love. We have resolute faith in the cause we are serving, hope for the future, and love for our fellow-men.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. member for Omaruru on his maiden speech here in this House. The hon. member made it very clear that he was a great patriot of South-West Africa, and that he will most certainly look after their interests in this House. His knowledge of that territory is outstanding. I think that if the future contributions by the hon. member in this House are always so interspersed with his knowledge as well as his feelings in respect of the territory he represents, we will have the greatest respect for them.

The hon. member for Brakpan returned to a matter which has already received much attention in this debate up to now, i.e. the question of the manpower shortage. The hon. member made an enthusiastic speech on the protection of the white worker. None of us on this side of the House have any objection to the hon. members plea for the protection of the white worker in South Africa. But let me also inform the hon. member that one of the best forms of protection for the white worker of South Africa will always be an unprecedented economic growth. The hon. member could be particularly fearful for the position of the white worker if there had been a surplus of white workers in this country, and if there had been large-scale unemployment among the white workers in South Africa.

But, Sir, that is not the position. There is no unemployment among the white workers. The hon. member said that work reservation was the protection for the white worker of South Africa. But the hon. member is one of those people who, with the Government policy and particularly with the application of their policy in respect of border industries are in fact creating the greatest danger for the white worker in South Africa because there will be no work reservation in those areas. If it is his argument that work reservation affords the white worker protection, what is happening to-day in regard to our border industries where any industrialist can employ a Bantu without his being subject to any of the other laws in regard to the white worker?

In the border areas they will be subject to that.

No, Sir, the hon. member allowed himself to be carried away by his enthusiasm for the white worker when he said that the United Party wanted to create chaos with our policy in respect of the white worker. The hon. member said the United Party did not want to train the semi-skilled white worker, but that we wanted to train the Bantu. Where does the hon. member get such nonsense from? This side of the House has always said that it is our policy that arrangements should be made for the retraining of the white worker in order to place him on an even higher rung in the industrial life of South Africa. But when the hon. member wants to curb our economic growth in South Africa, as he did in fact indicate here when he said that it would be better if the growth rate would diminish somewhat, I want to ask him whether this is also protection for the white worker in South Africa. No, Sir, only unprecedented economic growth can in fact afford the white worker of South Africa the greatest measure of protection.

Unprecedented?

Yes, because then he will always be afforded an opportunity of being retained and because he will always be afforded an opportunity of rising higher on the economic scale. The United Party’s policy is not that the white worker will be forced down. He will not be pulled down by the Bantu. No, the white worker, will move up and then the Bantu will take his place.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I should like to know from the hon. member for Newton Park what has happened to “the rate for the job” now?

The hon. member knows that that is the policy of this side of the House. I have said nothing which nullifies “the rate for the job” as a policy line of the United Party.

They are not applying it.

Yes, that is the point. They are not applying equal pay for equal work in the border industries.

Nor on the Railways.

Yes, other examples have also been mentioned, for example the Railways, where it is not being applied. If bringing the Bantu into the South African economy is such a grave danger for South Africa, why are other Government Departments allowed to do precisely this? Sir, I am a farmer. I can employ as many Bantu as I wish within reasonable limits. I can give a Bantu male any training I wish on my farm. I can allow a Bantu male to operate a machine which may cost R30,000. I can allow a Bantu male to operate the most expensive tractor on my farm. I can even train that Bantu male to help service my machine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and nobody can interfere in that. If the farmer is consequently being allowed to train skilled Bantu labour on his farm, and is being allowed to do so every day, how can it constitute such a terrible danger to the economic life of South Africa?

The only reason why people are doing so is because there is a scarcity of labour. It is not because they want to oust the white man in the economic sphere, or that there is a strong desire to move other people up. It is simply the practical situation which impels South Africa to do this. Unless this Government faces up to this matter, they can appoint the best public relation officers they can find to refurbish their “image” a little, and they can send the hon. member for Moorrees-burg and the Chief Secretary of the National Party in the Cape to England again to see how they win elections there, but they will not achieve any success with that. This is not only the opinion of the United Party.

The Nationalist Party’s own newspapers are prescribing to them what is necessary under present-day circumstances. Some time back Dawie wrote that priorities must be established. Among the first three priorities he mentioned the shortage of labour. He therefore regards it as a matter to which the Government must give its attention. Listen to what was written by Mr. Dirk Richard in the Dagbreek of 19th July, 1970, under the heading: “Wanted: A New Blueprint For Apartheid”—

He concludes by saying—

That is the Nationalist Party’s own Press. Among their own rank and file and in their own Press they are being told that they must find the answers to problems of this kind. It is strange that it should in fact have been Mr. Dirk Rezelman. who has now been appointed as the Public Relations Officer of the Nationalist Party, who said the following—

That is the problem this Government has. Not to appoint such a person and not to send organizers overseas …

What about your American analysis in depth?

I want to inform the hon. Minister that the United Party has also in the past devised plans to see whether there are other people who can show us how to govern. But now this hon. Minister is going to make precisely the same mistake. There is only one way in which one can learn to govern properly in South Africa and that is by maintaining contact with the people outside and carrying out their wishes. Even Mr. Rezelman had to return to the reply that there was only one way in which this could be done, i.e. to keep the lines of communication between the Government and the people of South Africa open. The people of South Africa realize one thing very clearly, i.e. that we cannot get along without the black man, whether it is on our farms, in our mines, our Government Departments, our business firms, or wherever it may be. In spite of what this Government is going to do, and in spite of what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu administration and Education is going to do, the inflow to our white cities will become increasingly stronger in the years which lie ahead.

Are you pleased about that?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me whether I am pleased about that. Why should I be pleased about it? It is quite simply a fact. If we want to develop South Africa economically we must have those people with us, because we cannot get along without them. If one considers what is happening in our agricultural industry today. one sees that the number of black people in the industry is not diminishing. There is only one group which is diminishing, and that is the white group itself. Over the past few years the number of black people in the industry has increased to such an extent that we have almost 3,100,000 black people on our farms, big and small, old and young. There has been a fantastic increase of black people on our farms. If this is what has happened in one centre of our economic life, what will the position be in other sectors? It will continue to increase in that sector. All the projections indicate that the number of black people on our white farms is going to increase even further.

Where do you get that figure from and why are the farmers not getting the labour they are complaining so much about?

There are in fact certain areas which do not have labour. These are figures which have been compiled by the South African Agricultural Union itself. There are to-day more than 3 million black people on our white farms.

In what document of the Agricultural Union does those figures appear?

1 shall subsequently furnish the hon. member with the references where he can find those figures. The 1970 census figures will still indicate that these figures are perhaps too low or that they are more or less the same as the findings of the investigation made by the South African Agricultural Union.

The hon. member wants to get me off my point. The position is simply that if the agricultural industry needs those people in greater numbers, South Africa, with its fantastic industrialization, will simply have to welcome those people into our white areas to an ever increasing extent. And they will come, in spite of anything whatsoever we do about it. An economic fact is simply a powerful weapon and a powerful law, because no one, whether he is a National Party supporter or a United Party supporter or whether he is Liberal or Progressive, will want to see the South African economy decline.

The Nationalists will.

Mr. Speaker, I hope their direction, their policy and their view is not that the economy of South Africa should decline; therefore, whatever they say and whatever they do, the position will simply cause more and more black men to come to our white areas. That is why the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Commerce is concerned about the situation, because if that influx is restricted, a vacuum will develop. Then there will be a stagnation, a recession or a retrogression in the economic development.

But I want to return to the hon. the Minister’s Budget. He told us that his Budget must be adapted to deal with the great dragon of inflation which we always have to cope with, and also with the shortage of trained manpower. It is strange that this Government should itself create these problems and then state that they will have to adapt themselves to the new circumstances. In particular I wanted to see whether there was tremendous encouragement in this Budget for certain sectors of our economy. What does this Budget contain for our farming industry for example, the industry which has in the past few years suffered the greatest set-back? This industry has suffered such a set-back that hon. Ministers have recently been forced to drive or fly about from place to place like busy bees to hold discussions with farmers on these difficult circumstances in which they now find themselves. These circumstances did not develop during the past six months. These circumstances have been developing for the past four of five years, but the serious nature of the matter is only now being realized, and only now is it regarded as essential that Ministers should visit these areas.

You are talking about things you know nothing about.

That hon. member is saying that I do not know what I am talking about. But he knows very well that the drought in the Sundays River Valley, for example, has been prevailing since 1958. Surely the hon. member knows that the drought in the Karoo …

Do not make a political issue of the drought.

Yes, that hon. member will of course say that I should not make a political issue of the drought. But it is the duty of this side of the House, and I also believe it is my duty, as chairman of our farming group, to point out to the Government that we are dealing here with a problem which has not developed over the past few months only, but which has been prevailing for a few years now, and in regard to which the Government has only recently decided quite suddenly that more should be done about it. Did the drought over most of the Karoo and in the Prince Albert and Beaufort West area develop only during the past six months, or during the past year?

In primeval times there was also a drought.

Yes, in 1932 there was also a drought. But then it was not necessary for the Burger, for example, to state that “Karoo farmers plead for assistance from Minister”. I think that those hon. members who represent those drought-stricken parts of the country here, realized the gravity of the situation a long time ago and brought it to the attention of the Minister along time ago. Have we not known for a long time that the Railways, the national transport system of South Africa, was unable, for example, to transport the fodder and supply the trucks. Did we not, for example, say to that side of the House 14 days ago that if there was an emergency and the Railways were unable to do its work, the South African Army should be called in?

Who said that?

I said it myself in reply to a question which one of the hon. members on that side of the House put to me. That was not the first time. During the great drought in the North Western Cape the assistance of the Army was called in. It is not therefore a new solution. Why was this not done a long time ago in order to alleviate the position of those people? The question we must ask ourselves to-day is whether there is anything in this Budget to rehabilitate the agricultural industry sufficiently. The hon. Minister has said that there is an additional R4¼ million for that purpose.

That is not all.

It is no use that hon. member being so hasty. He must listen to what I am saying. For this industry R4¼ million more was voted than in the previous year. A certain amount is being set aside to subsidize interest rates. I shall refer to that later. By means of Loan Account certain amounts have been made available to assist the Department of Agricultural Credit so that it can, in its turn, assist the farmers. But these remain drops in the ocean. That side of the House is not prepared to inject millions and millions of rand into our agricultural industry in order to rehabilitate it.

But this year it is already R25 million more than last year.

The hon. the deputy Minister is boasting of R25 million, while South Africa is loosing millions of rand annually as a result of the drought and as a result of a lack of training and timeous action in order to solve the problem.

But My-burgh, you cannot buy rain.

The hon. the Minister need not make such a ridiculous interjection. How many times have we not admitted that no one can do anything about unfavourable conditions in nature. But is the financial position not a source of concern to hon. members? We said to them five years ago that the high rates of interest were squeezing the farmers of South Africa dry. Five years ago we said that the Government must introduce an interest subsidy on farm mortgages to a maximum of 2 per cent. If that had been done at that time already, how much more favourable would the creditworthiness and capital resources of the farmer not have been to-day? Hon. members opposite are suggesting that it is only the drought which caused this situation. But although a major factor, the drought was not the only cause. The financial and economic position of the farmer has deteriorated, and has done so due to various factors. When the Government increased rates of interest in order to combat inflation, we asked the Minister of Finance to do what had been done previously, that is to subsidize rates of interest. But hon. members opposite said that this could not be done because it was not possible to discriminate against the other sectors. But to-day, now that pressure on their side is becoming ever greater, we find that they are forced to concede and are therefore subsidizing rates of interest on mortgages below R100,000 to a maximum of 1½ per cent. Does this subsidy apply to recognized financial institutions only? What about farmers who have mortgages from private individuals? Will they also be entitled to that subsidy? But there is a difference between this subsidy and the subsidy which we proposed at the time. The possibility is being envisaged that rates of interest may rise and it could easily happen that rates of interest are within the ensuing few years going to increase by 1½ per cent. In that case the subsidy will in fact be worth very little. When we proposed a subsidy of 2 per cent at the time, we did so because we saw that the financial and economic position of the farmer was deteriorating.

But it is not only rates of interest which are responsible for the problems of the farmer; nor simply the increase in production costs. Years ago South Africa had subsistence farming, but from time to time it developed into a commercial farming industry from which farmers wanted to make a profit. Then there was a profit motive present, and I believe that the profit motive is still there to-day. I think that farmers are to an increasing extent approaching their farming activities as a business man would his business. That is why we find that there are farmers who realize that if they can invest their money elsewhere, they would be better off. That is why there are so many of them who are asking: Why should we encourage our children to enter the farming industry at such a poor return? Why should they not preferably enter other professions? Why should they not preferably enter the business or industrial world? The best encouragement for the farmer to continue his farming activities, is the knowledge that he is also going to get a good return on his capital investment and on his skill. If the farmer is assured of that, surely he will not encourage his children to enter another field. The Minister and his Department must realize that the approach of the farmer today is that he also wants a decent return on his money, and must also be able to maintain a decent standard of living.

As far as production costs are concerned, it seems to me it will be extremely difficult to reduce those costs in future. This is the case because the farmer is not solely responsible for any increase in his production costs. Nobody rendering services to the farmers is going to charge less for those services. In five years’ time the farmer is not going to pay the garage which repairs his tractor and his motor-car any less. In five years’ time he is not going to pay less for a spare part. It seems to me therefore as if we can forget about any large-scale decrease in production costs. Under the circumstances there is only one other solution, that is to allow the farmer his due in regular price adjustments to compensate for the increase in his production costs. [Time expired.]

It is really a tragedy when a political party has reached the stage where it has to take advantage of a drought. That is the sign that a political party is bankrupt. The hon. member for Newton Park said here that not enough was being done now for the farmers, but we know these United Party people. Sir. When the same hon. member holds a meeting in Newton Park, he says that too much is being done for the farmers. But now he is hawking his wares here in this House, and says that not enough is being done for the farmers. The hon. member referred here to the Sundays River Valley. Six, I think the hon. member is being presumptuous in referring to that and saying that not enough is being done for the farmers in that area. A year or two ago the hon. the Prime Minister himself paid a visit to that area and adequate assistance was given to those farmers, water was even brought to them and medical services were supplied, free of charge. I am just mentioning this in passing. I actually want to return to the labour debate, and before I do so I just want to refer to a little report which appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times during the past week. We read there a report on leadership: “Five Ministers in the running for the premiership stakes: Power struggle in the Cabinet”. And then the old soothsayer of Hillbrow came along, after all he has become the prophet of the United Party, the “Madam Rose” of the United Party, and he said—

And then I want to refer to a further extract also from the Sunday Times of the same date where he had the following to say—

I say that I think it is in poor taste to place such a report at this stage, and make such a statement. But it is, after all, so noticeable that when their party has leadership problems, they always try to reflect on the National Party. We know what happened in the past. When they say there is division among us, the United Party is splitting. We had this with their previous leader. They kicked him out while he was overseas. I want to say we are proud of those five men whose names were mentioned here as possible future leaders and I want to tell you that when you cast your gaze over those on this side of the House, we can add another ten who are all competent. But let us look at that party who now want to disguise their leadership struggle. Here we have that small party with its 47 members, and they have four aspirant leaders who are at daggers drawn. There sits the Leader. He is supposed to reflect the rightist, the conservative group in this country. Then we have the hon. member for Hillbrow, the little Harry Oppenheimer. He should be sitting in the same bench here with the hon. member for Houghton, that is the liberal group, and then you have the hon. member for Yeoville who is sitting on two stools because he wants to see, when the lot is cast, whether it will not perhaps be cast into his lap. And then you still have the little man from Bezuidenhout bringing up the rear in their leadership Derby. I say that these are the people who are pointing a finger at us; then the hon. member for Newton Park has the temerity to tell us that we want to appoint an information officer for the National Party. So we are; he has already been appointed, but we, unlike the United Party, have never needed to call in a consultant from America: “U.P. gets expert from America to save it; the panacea he suggested for the U.P. leaders is depth motivation’.” Advertising people say that this is a method whereby the public are subtly influenced to accept an idea or to sell a product, and then he says he does not know whether they will ever be able to sell that product because of their policy. I am saying that these are then the people who are pointing a finger at us!

To return to the subject of labour, this party who for months and for days now has been talking and writing about the labour shortage, about the labour crisis, these people who are now trying, according to this consultant, to create a psychosis in South Africa to the effect that there is a manpower shortage now—that is what they are trying to do.

Is there a crisis?

No, there is no crisis. We do have a manpower shortage, but there is no crisis. Let us consider these hon. members. What have they suggested already? Where do we stand with the United Party. They have a new policy every day; they buy a new labour policy every day. Here in 1952, on 12th May in this House, Mr. Tighy came forward with a ten-point labour pattern, and do you know what it comprised? Inter alia a forty-hour working week, for one had to catch votes for the 1953 election, and subsidized holiday homes. Have you ever heard of anything like that? Subsidized holidays at the coast! Railway excursions and week-end holiday resorts! That was their labour charter in 1952, and then, very important, the maintenance of the colour bar. But do you know, Sir, this policy had scarcely come into being when Mr. Tighy again announced a policy on 8th June, 1952, and said—

That was the charter, but do you know what he then omitted there? A guarantee of the maintenance of the colour bar, and he also omitted all the subsidized holiday resorts and the holiday excursions. I say these are the hawkers, and then they want to attack this party! But that charter was still warm from the oven when Strauss came forward with another at the U.P. congress. In this third charter they came forward with something new; they then omitted the 40-hour working week, the subsidized houses as well as the nationalization of health services, and once again there was no guarantee of a colour bar. The National Party has made its policy very clear, and what do we get from the United Party? Yesterday, the hon. member for North Rand spoke here again of “the rate for the job”—unqualified. In other words, you can take on anyone as long as you are prepared to pay the rate for the job. Then the hon. member for South Coast came along —I am sorry he is not present here now—and he said: “No, we cannot appoint a Bantu as a track inspector.” The United Party wants to give the less skilled work to the Bantu. The post of track inspector, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who was in the Railway service will tell you, is the second or third lowest graded post. If the Bantu are not good enough to be appointed there, then I am asking the United: How do they want to bring the Bantu into the industries, into the labour pattern? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that they were going to delete section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. That is the section in terms of which one is able to eliminate inter-racial competition. Yesterday, they came forward again with “the rate for the job”, with certain qualifications added. And what is the policy of the hon. member for Hillbrow? The same as that of the hon. member for Houghton. I am quoting what he said—

Sir, where is the honesty, where is the integrity of that party? And then they have the moral courage to speak of morality and credibility! I have a pamphlet here which was issued during the time of the election by six trade unions who are members of Tucsa. They are people who also advocate “the rate for the job”, but when there was trouble with the engineering agreement in the engineering industry, they put a scare into the white worker a month before the election and said that the employers now wanted to fragment the work and that members of any race could do that work. Sir, it is these people who even have mixed trade unions who then wanted to scare the white voters of South Africa with the work reservation policy. No, Sir, that party cannot get away with murder with the white voter of South Africa. Sir, I want to quote to you what was said by one of the greatest trade union leaders. Mr. Lucas van den Berg, the chairman of the South African Co-ordinating Council, who represents 190,000 white workers in South Africa—

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked how many people enjoyed work protection under work reservation, and mention has been made of 3.5 per cent. Sir, these people have their industrial agreements; they have collective bargaining and they impose their own conditions. That is why it is ridiculous to say that 2 and 3 per cent of the white workers enjoy the privilege and protection of work reservation. No, Sir, there are many hundreds of thousands who enjoy it, and it would be a tragic day if this Government were ever to think of abolishing work reservation, and I want to advocate that we apply it, as it is being done here, under the conditions which have been laid down by this Party. I want to make further reference to this. This National Party is the party which has brought about growth in this country, but what did the United Party then do? When we were working to make a country of this country, to establish industries and to bring about growth, people such as the hon. Senator Eaton stood up in 1961, and asked what we were going to do with the unemployed in South Africa. There sits the party that opposed Iscor and Sasol. They must not tell me that they did not oppose it because here I have a pamphlet which was published in 1954 by the former member for Karoo, Mr. Eden. What did he say? I quote: “For Sasol the Government is wasting £11 million through set-backs.” This is what these people had to say who are complaining to-day that we have a labour shortage.

Here I have another pamphlet which was published in the 1958 election and with which they tried to scare the white workers. They said that it should be the white workers who should kick the National Party out in 1958 and by so doing avoid unemployment. That pamphlet was published and printed by the United Party in National Party colours. The old jackal with two tails! It is that same party which is complaining to-day about the disgraceful manpower shortage. This National Party brought about the greatest labour peace we have ever had in the labour market. It is unprecedented in this country.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition launched an attack on us here because we were spending too little on education and training in this country. The hon. member for Virginia referred to that. I can quote many statistics in this House, but time does not allow me to do so. I want to put in a very serious plea here to-day and say. “Woe betide the day when we remove work reservation from our Industrial Counciliation Act”. These people are idolizing profits, growth and money. That is what they are doing. They are prepared to place the Whites in this country on the altar of integration. That is what they are prepared to do, and that is the entire issue here. They will continue to do so as long as they can make money. We do need money for our survival, but we must have balanced growth and a happy labour force as well as peace and quiet and only then will every nation of this country be able to live happily.

Mr. Speaker, in the Budget presented by the hon. the Minister of Finance the Vote on which the highest amount has been provided is that of Provincial Administrations, and the second highest is that of Agriculture and its various ramifications. This shows us that the Government gives high priority to agriculture. This is the right thing to do, because in any country agriculture is an important pillar of the economy. William Jennings Bryan once said:

I should like to speak to-day on the value of agriculture to South Africa as far as relations with the outside world are concerned. In the year 1968 South Africa exported goods to the value of R1,389 million, gold excluded. Agricultural produce represented R506 million of that amount. That is approximately 40 per cent of the total exports. This is also the approximate annual ration, because agricultural exports represent about 40 per cent of the exports of South Africa. Approximately 50 per cent of those exports go to Britain and the rest go to many other countries in the world.

This establishes ties with those countries of the world to which these products are exported. It leads to the conclusion of treaties and agreements in regard to tariffs and customs matters. It also leads to South Africa’s being represented on various international marketing organizations and similar bodies. Practically all the countries of the world are to-day experiencing an agriculture problem or agricultural problems in some form or another. As a result, solutions are being sought for those problems and knowledge is exchanged. The agricultural scientists of South Africa are in very high standing in the Western world to-day. Large numbers of scientists come from the Western world to South Africa every year to investigate what is being done here in the field of science, and to exchange knowledge. During the past year South Africa was visited by agriculturists from all the most important Western countries, including the U.S.A., Canada, France, the Netherlands, Germany and others. It is also a fact that students from the Western countries are studying in South Africa to-day, particularly at Onderstepoort. It is also a fact that South Africa is represented on a large series of international agricultural science societies, and in many of them our representatives carry out executive duties. It therefore happens that South Africans annually attend and read papers at approximately 40 international congresses and symposiums. People from South Africa also visit other countries of the world to see what is being done there. Scientists attached to the Agriculture Departments visited more than 30 countries during the past year. Among them I am not including persons in the private sector, the agricultural industry, co-operative societies and organized agriculture.

In our own country, however, we have areas which are under-developed and which are developing. Moreover, we are living on a continent of under-developed territories. Their fundamental development problem is an agricultural one. It is a fact that in Africa 74 per cent of the population is engaged in agriculture, that agriculture makes the greatest contribution to the gross national product and to exports, but it is also a fact that a great deal of unemployment prevails in those countries. This is probably as a result of the fact that in developed countries industry is the largest employer, and they are giving priority to industrial development. However, they have achieved no appreciable success. The Economic Commission of Africa has indicated that the history of industry shows that an industrial population has never yet doubled itself in less than 8 to 10 years. If a country has no appreciable industrial development and there is a doubling in 8 to 12 years, not a great deal has happened. Only if a strong industry has already been established, can one achieve good results with development. Thus the Economic Commission of Africa maintained that it is not technical progress or the financial system or the population explosion which was responsible for the industrial revolution in Europe, but that it was fundamentally the agricultural development that was responsible for it. If a people cannot produce enough food for itself and has to import food, it has to use too great a proportion of its revenue to buy food. Therefore insufficient revenue is left to buy capital goods in order to initiate industrial development.

In India five-year programmes were launched to stimulate development, but in those programmes no great priority was given to agriculture. As a result it was found at the end of the third five-year programme that the physical volume per capita was lower than before the programme had been started. The Chinese, who also launched major industrial development programmes, said during the time of their greatest food shortages, i.e. from 1959 to 1962, that agriculture was the basis of the economy and industry the driving force. Therefore in 1970 the question is no longer agriculture as against industry, particularly as far as under-developed areas are concerned, but that both should be developed simultaneously in order to stimulate development there. As far as Africa is concerned, the population increase is 2.4 per cent per year. In order to keep pace with that and to produce enough food on the same level as at present, and also some little raw materials, for industrial development, agricultural production must increase by about 3 per cent per year. In order to achieve this, it means that in a hundred years’ time production will have to be 18 times more than it is at present, within two hundred years’ time it will have to be more than 300 times the present production, and within three hundred years’ time more than 5,000 times.

One of the great restrictive factors in this development is the human factor. Knowledge is the most important element in this. It is difficult to give an indication of how the knowledge in South Africa compares with that in the rest of Africa. But if we look at the number of agricultural faculties and colleges here, one gets some indication. It is a fact that in the nine states of Southern Africa there are eight agricultural faculties at universities. These include the veterinary faculties. Six of these are in South Africa. There are 11 agricultural colleges in these nine states, and eight of these are in South Africa. In the whole of Africa there are 20 states in which there is no agricultural college or agricultural faculty. That is why it has happened over the past number of years that Africa has begun to make more and more use of the know-how of South Africa. Various organizations have come into being with a view to the utilization of the soil and the combating of insect pests. South Africa has played a leading part in this and large areas of Africa have been opened up for agricultural production and development. I believe that in future the under-developed areas of Africa will be making increasing use of this know-how of South Africa. While we have been making this know-how available in the past, I believe that by making it available more and more, not only to them, but also to South Africa, we shall do great pioneering work in the future.

It is my privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Lichtenburg on making his maiden speech in this House. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him, because quite obviously he has made a thorough study of the subject with which he dealt, namely agriculture. He displayed a good knowledge of the subject. He high-lighted, I think this is an important point—the important role which agriculture plays in both a developing economy and also in the economy of a highly industrialized country. I think it is an important point which he raised, because very often the importance of agriculture in our country is overlooked. I welcome the hon. member to this House and wish him a long and happy stay in its environs.

I also want to refer to the subject of agriculture. Once again I believe the farmers of South Africa have been disappointed by the Budget which has been presented to us by the hon. the Minister of Finance. For months, perhaps even years, farmers have been looking to the clouds that would bring them moisture to alleviate their distress. But they have looked in vain, for the clouds have come and they have failed to precipitate. Quite rightly they have looked to the Budget of 1970 as a possible ray of hope. Government spokesmen and members on the opposite side have so often reaffirmed that they are the protagonists of agriculture. They have expressed their sympathy for the farming community and the farmers generally accepted that in this Budget there would be something for them. The farmers of South Africa have, however, looked in vain. Budget day has come but, like the clouds, the Budget has failed to precipitate. Hardly a drop has come their way. The few drops that have fallen are merely a drop in the ocean.

Talking of agriculture and of farmers, I do not think that we must create the impression that the farmers of South Africa are a spoon-fed and inefficient sector of our community who run to the Government whenever they face problems. On the contrary, I think that the whole nation should be proud of the way that the South African farmers have faced up to adversity and have built up the agricultural industry of our country. There is nothing they want more than to be free for all time of Government assistance. They would like to be on their own and independent. But on the other hand farming in South Africa is a challenge, probably more so than in any other country in the world, because the climate and the environment are against the farmer. They have, however, succeeded in feeding and clothing the nation. They have provided the nation with cheap food. All they ask for, and all they look to the Government for, is a long-term agricultural policy which ensures their stability and a reasonable profit. In this regard the Government has failed them.

I should like to mention a few instances where the Government has failed the farmer of South Africa. The Government has failed to provide a central agricultural financing organization or institution. We on this side of the House have pleaded year after year for the financing of agriculture to be placed under the control of one organization. If this is done, the Department of Agricultural Credit can be combined with the Land Bank and extended to form a far bigger organization. The financial problems of the South African farmer could then be far more efficiently dealt with.

The Government has also failed to provide an agricultural insurance scheme to protect the farmer against hail or drought and other hazards. It has failed to provide efficiently functioning soil conservation machinery to stabilize the soil of our country. It has failed to provide a scheme for training non-white labour. It has failed to provide a fodder bank scheme to feed drought-stricken stock. It has failed to provide an incentive for young farmers to come back to the land. These are all things which this Government has failed to achieve.

I do not believe that there has really been any forward planning by this Government. Only yesterday a report appeared in the newspapers that some 500 farmers had a meeting with the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. We know now that the Army will be called in to assist with the provision of drought fodder. This, like so many other measures the Government has adopted is an ad hoc arrangement. Hon. members who represent farming communities in the Eastern Cape saw the problems coming which have now arisen. On agricultural platforms during the election I warned that the very crisis which has now arisen, would come, and that it was then time for the Government to start planning for this eventuality. What did the Government members do, Sir? They went from platform to platform and all they told the farmers about was the amount of money the Government was spending to assist them in their troubles. They did not tell them what their forward planning was going to be. They did not tell them what arrangements were going to be made for the very situation that has arisen now.

Planning for what?

To make provision for the situation that has arisen now. They could see it coming. It was like the writing on the wall. This situation that the farmers are in now, where they are unable to provide food for their families and their staff, was in the process of occurring at that stage. But these hon. members did not have the foresight at that stage to plan for this situation. That is why, in spite of having members in this House, the farmers now have to plead with the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister to come and hear their troubles. It was the duty of the hon. members who represent the constituencies of Cradock, Somerset East and Graaff-Reinet to warn the Government of what was happening so that timeous planning could take place. It is merely a question of forward planning.

I mentioned earlier that no provision has been made for a fodder bank. I want to quote to this House from a speech I made on 9th May, 1967 (Hansard, col. 5622), when I addressed the following words to the then Minister of Agriculture—

It can be used for fodder banks and drought feeding arrangements. The then hon. Minister said that he did not think that this arrangement would be a practical solution and he merely ignored my suggestion. Now, two years later, and it is typical of this Government that they do not exercise foresight when they should, when there is no grass available, they suddenly come along with a scheme. I must say that the hon. Prime Minister indicated that R2 million was being set aside to assist with the establishment of a roughage co-operative in order to obtain fodder for the drought-stricken farmers. But now there is no roughage. If the Government had taken my advice and acted timeously, there would have been plenty of roughage available to give to the farmers in their distress at this time.

Do you want some roughage?

No, I do not want any.

I can get you some.

But what is the price? That is the problem. The price that one has to pay for this roughage to-day is quite exorbitant because of the scarcity, as the Government did not make provision for this timeously.

For years we on this side of the House have been indicating to the Government that we did not think that they were making the best use of their personnel in the various Departments. We said that there was a lot of red tape and in some cases overlapping of work. But nothing much seemed to happen and our pleas were ignored. I mention these matters because the hon. the Deputy Minister in his speech the other day said that we merely criticize and never make any constructive suggestions in these debates. We have, in fact, done so on many occasions and this is merely another instance. Now we have an announcement—and we welcome it—by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that there will be a re-organization of the Department of Agriculture Technical Services. It has taken this Government 22 years to realize that everything is not going well. At last they have agreed to what we have been saying and we have this re-organization to improve the efficiency of that particular Department.

I want to deal with another matter. I believe that the Government has two problems facing it to-day. On the one hand they have to save the farmers of South Africa and on the other hand they have to save the veld of South Africa. Quite obviously, of these two, the former is the more important. However, on the other hand, without the veld, the stock problem cannot be tackled. I should like to say one or two words this afternoon in regard to the question of the stock reduction scheme. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I believe that this is one of the best schemes the Government has ever introduced into the pasture industry of South Africa. I believe it is a scheme that can play a tremendous roll in rehabilitating the pastures of this country. I do not think it is necessary for me to emphasize the serious state in which the pastures of South Africa are. I believe that it is a matter of national importance that this question of rehabilitating our veld be tackled with all the resources available. I am therefore disappointed that in this Budget the hon. the Minister of Finance has not mentioned this scheme. There is no indication that far more money will be made available to finance this scheme on a far larger scale than is contemplated at the present stage. The present scheme enables a farmer to benefit to the extent of R5,000 at the most. That is quite a considerable amount. However, a farmer is restricted to that amount. I should like to plead this afternoon that there should be no limit to how far a farmer can go with the reduction of the stock on his farm. If the situation arises where a man’s veld resources are depleted, I believe this Government should place him in a position to release all his stock. I believe that in many cases the situation has arisen where it is necessary for the farmer to be able to take another occupation during this period of rehabilitation of his farm. I think it is right that this Government should now be prepared to face up to that situation. Even if it will cost the Government double or treble the amount that it at present visualizes spending on this scheme, it should be prepared to face the situation. Even if it will cost the Government R20 million then I say the Government should be prepared to spend that money, because it would be the best investment that this Government can make in the interests of farming in South Africa.

There is another problem that arises with this scheme which is the cause why it is not functioning now as it should be. The Government has again not looked far enough into the future. They have not made a plan for the disposal of the stock that are too thin to be marketed. There are millions of stock in this country at the present time which are not suitable for marketing purposes. What does the farmer do with this stock? He cannot sell them; therefore he makes use of the fodder subsidy scheme and carries on trying to feed his stock. Thus he lands himself into more and more debt. Eventually, when the drought does break, he will have such a load of debt around his neck that he can never become financially rehabilitated. Therefore my suggestion to the Government is that a kind of abattoir or meat factory should be created where all these stock which are in an unmarketable state, could be turned in to bonemeal, meatmeal and bloodmeal and sold as fertilizer. This should have been done already.

Will you sell your stock for that purpose?

No, I will not sell mine because mine are properly looked after. However, the position is that many stock are not in a state to be marketed. Now the farmer comes to the Government and ask the Government to subsidize the fodder for his stock which is already over-capitalized. That is no proposition. My proposition is that the Government must buy those stock even if they pay R4 per head. It should then be turned into some useful form of fertilizer. In this way the burden will be taken off the Government’s neck. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he does not think this is a proposition. If he does not, he will be faced with feeding millions of sheep for a long term that, in the end, will cost the Government far more than the proposition I am suggesting to him. This is a proposition which I strongly recommend to the Government. I have made other suggestions in this House before that have been ignored, but then the Government says that we are only critical. But this is a proposition that I believe will save the Government and the hon. the Minister of Finance, if he tackles it properly and in a dynamic manner, millions of the taxpayers’ money in future. It will get the farmers properly rehabilitated and then in future they will not have to come running to the Government for assistance as is the case to-day.

Hon. members all realize with what mixed feelings a new member gets up in this House to make his first speech. To me as the representative of Port Elizabeth (Central) it is an honour to play my part, no matter how humble, on this stage, because this is the stage on which the history of the past six decades of our country was enacted. A new member takes some heart from the idea that all the orators of the past and of to-day had to start with a maiden speech.

Sir, 1970 has been designated as the Water Year of the Republic. We who come from the Eastern Province are only too aware of the vital importance of sufficient water. When I think of the titanic struggle those people are waging at present so as to make a living in that area as a result of the unprecedented drought, then I am reminded of the hero of old who, virtually mortally wounded, dropped down on the battlefield and said: “I am hurt; I am hurt, but not quite slain. I shall lay me down and bleed awhile and then I will up and fight again”. This is the spirit with which those people are inspired, including those who are living in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage industrial complex and we members representing that area.

Unfortunately this area has been showing a slight downward trend in recent times as far as investment in the manufacturing sector is concerned. Various measures and other factors have played a part in this matter, and apart from the fact that this is restraining invested capital already represented by existing industries, we also have to keep in mind that numerous of the farmers of the drought-stricken parts are pouring into and seeking work in this complex; and it is our duty to see to it that this industrial complex will not be restrained any further, but will be developed. With reference to that remark I should like to outline a few of the problems we are experiencing from the industrial point of view in Port Elizabeth.

The background of the few remarks of mine is:

The industrialists producing motor vehicles at the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex, are producing more than 50 per cent of the vehicles of South Africa.

Port Elizabeth is the fourth most important industrial area in South Africa.

Port Elizabeth harbour is the third most important in the Republic.

Port Elizabeth itself is the fifth biggest town in the Republic.

In other words, it represents a capital investment of enormous size and importance.

The problems with which we are struggling at present against this background, and for which we should like to enlist the aid and the sympathetic approach of the Government, is in the first place the labour problem. A certain measure of uncertainty has arisen, and uncertainty is fatal to industrial development. I want to make an appeal to all the Ministers concerned who have an interest in this matter to launch discussions on a high level in that area as soon as possible, so that all the difficulties may be smoothed out and so that there need not be any uncertainty about the labour and the labour potential we may utilize.

In the second instance, there is the housing scarcity. In the constituency which I represent, there are parts which come very close to slum conditions indeed. I want to make an appeal to the Government to give further consideration to this matter, apart from the concessions already announced in the Budget, so as to enable the middle class man to acquire his own house and live in decent circumstances.

The further problem which we have in Port Elizabeth, is the proposed extension of our harbour, which is being held in abeyance to some extent. I am indeed aware of the fact that millions of rand were spent on the section from Noupoont to Port Elizabeth, which actually brings the Sishen ore to us. but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Transport whether he cannot expedite those extensions, including the building of a new station, because the station at Port Elizabeth really is no credit to that city.

The final matter I want to raise, arises out of newspaper reports on the negotiations of Iscor with the steel magnates of Japan, which are to the effect that these negotiations are not running very smoothly. I want to put to the Government in the strongest possible way, amiable though urgent, the request to reconsider this whole matter of an iron ore wharf for the export of iron ore from South Africa. We have here at St. Croix in Port Elizabeth a project which will be financed by private initiative and which will be able to commence the export of iron ore within a period of approximately two years, which will earn foreign exchange which we urgently need, and will help to bridge the gap in our balance of payments. I want to ask the Government to give sympathetic consideration to this.

Unfortunately I have to tread on the toes of my colleague, the hon. member for King William’s Town, by telling him the following, i.e. that once the iron ore is exported from St. Croix, Port Elizabeth will be the natural location of the fourth Iscor, and no other centre.

In conclusion the following: In the past the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex received sympathetic consideration of their requests from the Cabinet. May I ask for this to happen again, so that we may develop the industrial potential of our area to the optimum; because if we can give employment opportunities to all our people, it will mean satisfaction amongst the workers and satisfaction amongst the workers will result in national prosperity and national peace.

Mr. Speaker, I find it a great pleasure and privilege on this occasion to congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) on his maiden speech, which he has just made here, and I do so gladly. I know how he feels now; I know that he feels better and more at ease. All of us sitting in this House have, as he rightly said, made a maiden speech at some time or other. I can congratulate him on having done so in a calm manner and on having put forward the needs of his constituency very nicely. It is our wish that he will spend a long and fruitful time here. [Interjections], Sir, I shall not react to that hon. member’s interjection. Since I am readily congratulating a member on his side, I think he could have spared me that interjection.

This afternoon the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made an allegation here against this side of the House, a charge which in truth had no foundation in substance at all. He came along here with a lot of allegations that I shall come back to at a later stage. In the meantime I just want to tell him that when the people of South Africa are confronted by the true circumstances concerning their survival. I do not doubt for a single moment what their choice will be and what policy they will choose. Our people in South Africa do not allow themselves to be incited against a Government over non-essentials. When they are confronted by the true circumstances concerning their survival, I know what their choice will be. I want to add that when we must relinquish certain things for the sake of our survival—and this is inherent in human beings and inherent in the Whites here in South Africa—the white person is not making a sacrifice, nor does he then speak of a sacrifice; because he is prepared to make any adjustment for the sake of his survival. He is not freely going to follow a course in which his self-destruction lies.

Mr. Speaker, this Parliament, which consists of two elements, i.e. the Government and the Opposition, each with his own particular policy, has in this day and age a solemn responsibility not only to the present inhabitants of South Africa, but also to the future generations who must inhabit this country in the centuries ahead. We in South Africa form a democracy, and that is why we have the opportunity, at each general election, of choosing one of these two policies. It is not the person that is involved here; it is a policy. The voters are given information, and they decide which of these policies should be followed. As the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rightly said, the voters of South Africa decided on six such occasions that the National Party’s policy of separate development, which overrides all the other aspects concerning the administration of the country, is the policy that must be applied in South Africa, and in these same elections the voters rejected the United Party’s policy, which must of necessity result in integration.

Sir, stimulating ideas were expressed here about the up-and-coming generation, about the youth, in South Africa. I am the last person who wants to deny the youth the right and the freedom to think dynamically and constructively about South Africa and about the South African systems of Government, but it is a good thing to remind the youth that they must not think in an unbridled and disorderly fashion, and that one’s patterns of thought should also be anchored in certain basic principles. particularly in a country such as South Africa. This is a warning the youth would do well to take note of. With the guidance of senior South Africa and the dynamic thinking of the youth, we can then achieve something big. It is also a good thing for us to have a proper knowledge of history because if we want to determine our course for the future, we shall also have to look at the road along which we came, in order to see where that road leads. Sir. in the time at my disposal I want to stop for moment to remind hon. members of the political climate that prevailed here in South Africa in 1946, before the National Party came into power in 1948, and this, in my opinion, is one of the factors which led to the voting public in those days rejecting the United Party’s policy and accepting the new policy of the National Party, i.e. the policy of separate development. I do not find it more sharply defined than specifically in a debate conducted in this House about the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act. The late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr was asked whether the measure would not give rise to the Indians eventially sitting in this House as well. Mr. Hofmeyr’s reply to that was (translation) — “I have no fear of that. Eventually the colour bar will have to disappear from our Union Constitution, and eventually in this House, in our provincial councils and in our municipalities the Bantu will be represented by the Bantu, the Indians by the Indians, the Coloureds, by the Coloureds and the Whites by the Whites”. Those were Mr. Hofmeyr’s words; that was the U.P. policy at that time. The voter in South Africa then decided that he could not accept that policy because it did not contain the element of self-preservation; it carried the germ of self-destruction. The voters were not prepared to place a party in power with a policy which would lead to self-destruction. The youth would then do well to take note of the policy as announced at the time by Mr. Hofmeyr, and of its consequences, i.e. that we would have had a mixed Parliament here and multi-racial or multi-national provincial councils and municipalities. In those days the shadow of Mr. Hofmeyr was already falling across the person of General Smuts. Sir, there are specific things that influenced the voters at the polls, and I want to emphasize very strongly that in a country such as South Africa one of the dominant factors that influences the voters at the polls is the composition of our population here in South Africa. The majority of the voters accept that we are not one country and a multi-coloured people totalling 20 million: the majority of the voters accept the fact of South Africa’s multi-nationality, and once we have accepted that we seek ways and means and work out patterns of policy according to which we, with this thought in mind, can create an administration for South Africa which will ensure peace and quiet. The voter accepts this fact of multi-racialism because he knows that here there is a diversity of people, and he then expects that pattern of policy to be applied, because it gives him a specific guarantee. That is what man seeks; he seeks security: he seeks a guarantee for those values which he will not relinquish for anything in the world, and he is prepared to make adjustments in order to apply and preserve those values which will ensure his survival. That is why in a country such as South Africa we must have the assurance of a strong and healthy economy. We cannot have an economy built upon a precarious labour market. We are prepared to make adjustments and to give South Africa an economy which can withstand the test of time. We are not prepared to make petty politics out of that, because we want to give South Africa a strong and growing economy. This is what the voters are looking for, and they accept this fact because they are seeking political stability. We in South Africa, who are living in a dangerous world, particularly if we are seen in context in Africa, cannot afford political instability; we cannot have another Government every day. We must have political stability. In the third place, the voter is seeking a feeling of security. For him that security proceeds from the fact that with our policy and with the application of our policy we are removing points of friction in our multi-national composition and creating opportunities for every population group in South Africa. Above all, the voter in South Africa, whether he is Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking, is looking for the guarantee that his own identity as a white man, or a Zulu or a Xhosa, will will be retained. Now, although it is perhaps a little uncalled for, I want to give a friendly hint to youth. In our thinking we must keep ourself anchored to certain basic things and we must not think in a dissolute fashion. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout laid a charge at the door of this side of the House and said that either we did not have the will or we did not have the courage to carry out this policy to which I referred briefly. I now want to ask them why the United Party has then been opposing us in this House for 22 years? Why then this mock battle about a manpower shortage now? Let us think back over the 22 years the National Party has been in power. The United Party is opposing our policy of apartheid because we are applying apartheid and because they do not want apartheid and separate development. For that reason they have been opposing us throughout the years. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout apparently holds it against us that we cannot immediately give sovereign independence to every population group. My hon. friend on this side referred briefly to that. He used the example of the procedure Britain adopted with its High Commission territories and in Southern Africa. Does the hon. friend want us to follow that pattern? Does the hon. friend want us to do that? The hon. the Minister, and in particular the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, spoke so many times about our present guardianship over those peoples. He spoke for hours and days on end about the gradual emancipation of those people. My hon. friend wants us to make a Congo of South Africa. That is what he wants. He wants us to let South Africa look like the rest of Africa, and he wents the white man to withdraw himself immediately. On occasion the hon. the Minister used tin image of the two trees that had grown side by side for 300 years, and he spoke of the roots that had become intertwined, but that had not yet become one; the shifting of the trees will be a lengthy, an arduous and a difficult process of untwining. That is precisely what the untwining of the various groups will be, whether it happens tomorrow or the day after. At the beginning of my speech I said that Parliament, i.e. the Government and the Opposition, has a solemn responsibility, not only to the people of today, but also to the people of to-morrow. We may talk as much as we like, but we shall continue with this policy. We have no other choice. This Government does not act arbitrarily. It acts, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rightly said, in terms of a mandate and on the instructions of a people. It carries out the policy and it will choose its time for doing so. It will apply its sound judgment. We have the will, the courage and the people with which to do so. We would have liked to have the cooperation of the Opposition in doing it, but if we do not get their co-operation in preserving or safeguarding those values which guarantee the survival of a people, we shall do so without the Opposition’s help. However, I would prefer that we did so with the Opposition’s help. Therein lies the cardinal difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. We see South Africa with a diversity of peoples, but they do not acknowledge this. We saw this in the attitude the hon. the Leader of the Opposition displayed recently, i.e. that he sees South Africa only as a mass of people, and as one integrated country with 20 million people. We see South Africa differently. We believe that we are right, and the voters know we are right. How are we progressing now and what are we doing? I just want to mention a few things that we are doing and I want to mention how we are progressing. Here, in the face of the warnings of the prophets of doom, we put forward the idea of the establishment of border industries. Hon. members opposite must be careful when they are speaking about these matters, because as with an Iscor and other matters they will still come back and express their appreciation for that. They will then say that it was their idea and their policy. The latest available figure which we received in February, 1970, indicates that 135.0 Bantu workers are already employed in industries in the border areas. According to recognized world standards consequential employment is two for every existing worker. This means that as a result of border industries 405.0 Bantu are already working and involved in those border industries. I just want point out that those 405.000 Bantu would have been settled here in White South Africa o a family basis, which the United Party would like, and would have had to obtain their proprietary rights here at very great expense, and this would have brought more than we million Bantu here. However, now they are settled in their own areas.

Another aspect is the industrial development on an agency basis within the Bantu areas. Hon. members opposite may belittle it as much as they want to. An hon. member who spoke o-day referred to Temba at Hammanskraal, where in a relatively short time three quarters of those industrial stands have already been occupied on an agency basis within the Bantu area. However, I want to point out that we also need trained Bantu, because the Bantu himself is being activated to develop his own homelands. Therefore we shall not be able to bring all the labour here; we shall have to harnass it there to help with the development of his own homeland. I also want to refer to the prospecting and mining lease agreements that have been concluded. More than 100 mines are already productive in the Bantu homelands. They are creating growth points and are helping to make our Bantu homelands viable. I say this for the information of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. This is being done in the process of carrying out our policy of separate development. What about agriculture? Forty five per cent of the Bantu areas have already been planned in terms of residential units, pastures and cultivated fields. 24,000 morgen have already been placed under irrigation. Hon. members may belittle this, but it makes no difference to me or to the voters. Some of the hon. members opposite accompanied us on bus tours in order to have a look at these areas. Some of them appreciated it and also expressed their appreciation, but others just went along to gather venom. However, we know that our efforts are honest and sincere and that we shall succeed. Mr. Speaker, at our own time, and according to our pattern and our policy we shall do the right thing at the right time. We shall not make the mistakes that have been made in the past. As a result of past mistakes that were made in the Transkei by the previous Government, Whites who had proprietary rights there had to be bought out for an amount of more than R2 million in 1968, and for an amount of more than R3 million last year. We are succeeding with our policy. Last year we resettled more than 20,0 individuals in Bantu areas, where they are making a living and where they can be themselves. In this Parliament we placed the Bantu Citizenship Act on the Statute Book. We are seeking the preservation of identity, and with that Act we made it possible for people to be identified and distinguished today, and for the maintenance of diversity, as we believe the Creator willed it. I believe that the values and the course of self-preservation of each of these peoples in South Africa is inherent in that.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to me to be able to make my humble contribution in this hon. House this evening. Firstly, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to hon. members on both sides of this House, who have made me feel welcome during the time I have been here. However, when one has to make your contribution here, one does so in the realization of the responsibility which one has to bear in this House.

My predecessor, the hon. Mr. Froneman, represented our area for more than 26 years. This is a long period in the life of a person, but also a long period in the life of a constituency. For the first ten years he represented us in the provincial council and for the last slightly more than 16 years in this House. It gives me great pleasure this evening to pay tribute on this occasion to this man of the Free State. He displayed outstanding characteristics in his term of service of 26 years. One of those characteristics is the absolute loyalty which he displayed to his party and to the people he served. He carried out his task with absolute loyalty, but also with a passion for work that one finds in very few people. It is an indisputable fact that, in addition, it is his ability which carried him to greater heights.

Mr. Froneman not only helped to lay the foundations of progress and of community development in our area, but he also earned the name of honour of “the Tom Naude” of Heilbron. In later years he served as a fulltime member of the Bantu Affairs Commission, subsequently as Deputy Minister of Justice, Mines and Planning, and now he is serving as the Administrator of the Free State. I should like to wish him everything of the best in this high office. I should like to say to him that I hope and trust that one day when he retires from this position, he will also be known as “the Tom Naude” of the Free State. On this occasion I should also like to address a special word of thanks to Mrs. Froneman and her family, who have faithfully assisted Mr. Froneman through all the years. We of the Heilbron constituency appreciate this sincerely. It will also be my aim in my political career to be a worthy successor to this great Parliamentarian for my constituency and for my country.

To come back to my constituency, I just want to say that I can probably be justly proud of the constituency which I represent, as every other hon. member in this House is proud of his constituency. The constituency of Heilbron also received its share of the great assets which our fatherland possesses. In thinking of the assets which Heilbron possesses, I think in the first place of its people. It has been my experience during many years of service to this community, that we have to do here with people of sound spirit, people with character who are attuned to the meaningful, the beautiful and the virtuous in man. They are people who believe that each of us has a calling, that we must be anchored in our national past, but must have vision and courage and unshakable faith in the future of our people and of our country, South Africa. This is the attitude of my people. We have also succeeded in inculcating this attitude in our young people. I do not find it strange that this should be the case. I find it understandable, because Vegkop, the Blood River of the Free State, is situated in our constituency. And what memories does this not hold for us of the history of our people’s growth to nationhood.

We are grateful that this battlefield, a symbol of the white man’s faith and courage, will be restored shortly so that this part of the history of our people will also be preserved in a vivid way for posterity. We regard this restoration of our battlefields not only as a matter for the various areas in which these battlefields are situated, but also as a matter of national importance. We have already done our share in connection with Blood River. We shall do the same in the case of other battlefields as is being done in the case of Vegkop. It is gratifying for me, and I am proud to be able to say, that we have people with courage and vision, people who are motivated in their actions. Last year we in Heilbron won the physical fitness competition. Heilbron was the town with the fittest people in the Republic of South Africa. We are also hoping to erect a civic centre one of these days. It will be unique, because it will be the first of its kind in a rural town. There we are going to apply our energies towards promoting further development and towards developing our people and our society in the various fields. We shall gather there and adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the needs of our society.

I should also like to say something about another great asset of our fatherland which falls within the boundaries of my constituency. I am referring to the Vaal Dam. I need not tell hon. members of this House about the Vaal Dam. I do not think there is one single person in South Africa who does not know the significance of the Vaal Dam. The power generated there is responsible for 45 per cent of our industrial production, it supplies water to many municipalities and irrigation farmers, and it has in fact been the nucleus for the great development in this country.

I should like to say a few words in this debate about this dam and its great future. If there is one thing which probably captures the imagination of our people during the Water Year, it is the maximum utilization of water. One also feels glad for what the State is doing in respect of this very important matter, and particularly for what our Minister of Water Affairs and his Department are doing in this connection. If there is one outstanding aspect of this Budget, I think it is definitely the enormous amount which has been earmarked for water. I think this is in the interests of the future of South Africa, and I think we shall all accept it as such. If one thinks of South Africa and its possibilities of development in the field of agriculture as well as the field of industry and in respect of the implementation of our policy, it is essential that there should be proper utilization of our water resources and water supplies. It is a matter of priority.

In our country with its uncertain rainfall and its continual droughts, we will have to give priority to the possibilities of food production. Our population is getting larger and larger, but our productive land is not increasing. The soil and the rainfall as it is distributed, is the foundation of food production. Eight per cent of the total rainfall which reaches the soil, eventually reaches the rivers. In Holland the position is that 57 per cent on an average flows away in rivers. In Wales it is 70 per cent and in the case of the Thames Valley it is 31 per cent. Here in South Africa we therefore have a unique situation in that we have little water flowing off. This brings us to the fact that the soil with rainfall as the natural and only application of water supports all the livestock of the Republic and yields 100 per cent of its maize crop, 75 per cent of its potato crop and 90 per cent of its wheat. From this, one important fact is quite clear, i.e. that the soil is the greatest food and water bank of the Republic. The greatest challenge for the technicians, for our leaders, for our farmers and for the entire population is therefore to do justice to soil conservation, to utilize and improve our soil, to protect river catchment areas and to harness our valuable mountain catchment areas. Only in this way can a growing population be fed and developed to economic independence.

I now come to the second component of our water economics, i.e. the water supplies and our water resources. In the case of the Vaal Dam too we have this small percentage, i.e. 8 per cent, which runs off. This so-called distributable water must be planned and regulated in such a way that we put it to maximum use in order to ensure our continued existence and to promote development in every sphere. Water must not be wasted.

The future industrial demand and the corresponding needs of housing schemes with the increased standard of living of the individual will increase irresistibly. It is a fact that the standard of living increases as power consumption increases. It is interesting to note that within the next ten years we shall have a 100 per cent increase in power consumption. It is estimated that the demand for water in the Vaal Triangle will increase in the next few decades to over 1,400 million gallons a day, that is to say, the potential will be exceeded. The amount of used water with its pollution content will also increase from 100 million gallons a day to more than 600 million gallons. When faced with such problems, we must plan properly and in a co-ordinated way. There is evidence that these pollution elements are already reaching the Vaal River and Vaal Dam. In other words, it may happen that the advantage of imported water will be neutralized by pollution.

However, I am glad that we know that strict measures have been announced in this connection by the Minister of Water Affairs. The most effective way of limiting pollution of the water sources is to control all outflow and to reclaim these as important B class water resources. The mineralized water of the Wit-watersrand complex is already being partially dammed up in lakes and pans. In some cases the utilization of this water has already been planned. These lakes and pans can form the nucleus for the development of a network of control systems for the storage and reclaiming of water. The most positive and beneficial aspects of these guaranteed B class water sources lies, on the one hand, in their utilization, and on the other hand, in their specific value as guaranteed water sources as well as in the erection of large-scale power stations and fresh water factories.

Even if the salt concentration of these control systems were to build up to that of sea water in the course of time, we can by means of present-day techniques and those which can still be developed, also by means of the application of enriched uranium, indeed reclaim this water. The breakthrough made during the past ten years has proved that this joint undertaking of obtaining fresh water and power from mineralized water sources can be made an attractive economic undertaking. Admittedly there are great challenges to be faced by the engineer in particular, but also by people who have to plan for the future. The severe droughts of recent years have forced us to take a critical look at the water position in the Republic in general and that in the Vaal River complex in particular.

Our rivers and our subterranean water resources must be regarded as the Republic’s water capital which must be distributed and protected in such a way that our continued existence and the development of our economy and everything that goes with it, can be ensured for the future and so that balanced growth can be guaranteed. I hope that the hard work, the skill and the seriousness of our people will enable us to plan, protect and distribute this water, which is so important, in such a way that we shall eventually succeed in effecting savings, so much so that we shall also be able to provide water to our smaller towns, which are community centres, service centres and cultural centres. In my constituency I have in mind, for example, Lindley, Petrus Steyn, Steynsrus, Edenville and others. In so doing we shall also be giving them some of the riches of their area.

By this I mean that the water will be apportioned in such a way that the white heartland of the Republic, the Free State, will get its fair share, which will also provide the generative power for the establishment of capital-intensive industries with white labour. In so doing we shall be able to protect and develop what we have and what is invested in our small towns. I hope that this matter of water planning will receive priority as far as this complex, this heartland of the Republic of South Africa, is concerned.

It is also very clear to me that our farmers who practise irrigation, must use our water so correctly in the food production of this country, that the irritating argument of some people i. e. that less water should be provided for agriculture and more for industry, does not find acceptance.

When the House adjourned, I was stating the importance of the correct apportionment of water in respect of irrigation as well, but I also said that my fellow-farmers must do their share in saving water by applying the necessary scientific methods and by using water correctly. I hope that our young men, particularly our technicians, will take note of the importance of water for our continued existence in this country and the development of our economy, and that they will accept this task which is to be carried out in respect of our fatherland by doing their share in the field of technology and science. In this regard I cannot but think of the wonderful careers which are available to our young men and young technicians in the Department of Water Affairs, which in fact has to carry out this task in respect of our water planning and the implementation thereof. I have in mind particularly the bursaries and the very good terms attached to these bursaries in respect of these careers and positions within the Department of Water Affairs, and I hope our young men who want to qualify themselves in this direction will come to offer their services to this Department. This is important to me, because in our national anthem we say: “At Thy call we shall not falter, firm and steadfast we shall stand, at they will to live or perish, Oh South Africa, dear land”. It is very clear to me that, in respect of this task, particularly our youth must strive and work for South Africa, because if we do not want to work for South Africa, we shall perhaps have to die for South Africa eventually, and it is better to work for South Africa than to die for South Africa.

I have tried not to over-emphasize the importance of water, because South Africa’s good must be sought in many spheres. It would be wrong to single out this one sphere and to exaggerate its importance, just as little as we want to signle out and over-emphasize agriculture or industry or defence or any other aspect. We must seek South Africa’s good in all spheres with all their problems and all their facets, and we must try to solve all these problems on a balanced basis.

In connection with the Budget I should like to say that in looking through it, the very thing that strikes me is that there is balance in respect of the future, also in the long term, for South Africa, and therefore I should also like to give my support to the Budget. As a farmer who represents a farming constituency, it is my task and duty, on behalf of the farmers in Heilbron, where we often have droughts and only recently were still in the grip of a very severe drought, to express our sympathy with the farmers in the Cape Province and elsewhere who have to suffer this severe drought. We sympathize with them: we know what it means, and we have also noted with great appreciation that they do not simply want to receive alms, but that they want to keep heart and carry out this traditional task which has been entrusted to the farmer of South Africa, and that they want to remain farmers in spite of all these problems. This is important to me, and it is in the interests of South Africa.

I am very pleased to be able to congratulate the hon. member for Heilbron on his maiden speech to-night. He gave us a very interesting talk. He dealt with the assets of his own constituency and then he went on to talk about something which affects the country as a whole and which constitutes a great problem to us to-day, the scarcity of water. We listened with interest to what he had to say. Of course I cannot agree with his concluding remarks where he almost congratulated the hon. the Minister of Finance on his Budget, but that is beside the point. I hope he will have a happy stay in Parliament. Unfortunately with this wind of change in politics he is not likely to be here much longer than any of the other hon. members opposite, but while he is here I hope he will enjoy his stay.

Unfortunately I cannot congratulate the hon. member who spoke before him. Of course it was not a maiden speech. Had it been a maiden speech he would of course have been more particular about what he said, because he must realize that an hon. member is judged more or less on his maiden speech as to what his future in this House is going to be. But when I heard him talk, and also the hon. member for Potchefstroom, I thought the Nationalists are now really scraping the barrel. When they have to go back, as the hon. member for Potchefstroom did, to 1926 and what happened in the Natal Provincial Council in 1926, it is going back almost to the days of the Anglo-Boer War and the rinderpest. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad actually went back to Hofmeyr’s days.

You are ashamed.

No, I am not ashamed, but I should like to remind them of some of the things that happened a long time ago. But we live in the present, and that is the difference between the United Party and the Nationalist Party, namely that we live in the present and for the future. Talking about the past, I could remind him of the letter that Dr. Verwoerd wrote to Mr. Menzies, and also to a parson, in which he said that the future of the Coloureds was possibly representation in this Parliament. [Interjections.] I remember, too, when Dr. Malan opposed the granting of the vote to white women because, he said, we would have to give it to Coloured women as well. But we do not want to go back into those old days. I would have thought especially those hon. members would try to get away from the past. [Interjections.] Sir, the member for Heilbron wants to know why the United Party is fighting. We are fighting the Nationalist Party because we feel that this Government is fiddling while Rome is burning. They are doing nothing and I will go into it more fully as to why they cannot do anything, but he said that because of the action of past United Party Governments, this Government had to pay out millions of rands to White people in the Transkei for land which the Government had to buy now. I should like to point out to that hon. member that it is because of the White people who settled in the Transkei with Government encouragement that that area was tamed and that it was because of the encouragement given to White missionaries that that area was Christianized. And because of the development which took place there by a few White people this Government is able to apply its policy there before they can do so in any other part of the country, because the people of the Transkei have been trained in a democratic form of government. That is why they can proceed faster there than anywhere else. It ill behoves him to come and criticize past governments for what happened in the Transkei. I would like to remind him that although they try to forget the image of Gen. Hertzog— Dr. Hertzog, of course, they would like to forget altogether but they cannot—Gen. Hertzog, who was the Prime Minister of this country for many years, continued the policy started by the old South African Party and by the British Government in the Cape Colony before that and also afterwards when he became the leader of the United Party. Sir, I would like to remind him of something else and that is that Gen. Hertzog said in 1936 that the policy of the United Party was traditional, and that was that the Bantu areas would develop to self-government but always under the umbrella of the Central Government. That is the traditional policy of South Africa.

That is more than you say now.

Sir, I do not want to talk about the Transkei because it is too onesided for me to talk about the Transkei. Let me rather talk about something else.

Sir, our Leader and hon. members on this side of the House, especially on the first day, when we discussed the economic and financial aspects of this Budget, showed the dilemma in which this Government finds itself. Sir, it must have dynamic industrial and economic growth if it is to carry out its ideological policy, and if it carries out its ideological policy of separateness. then it can have no economic development. This dilemma of the Government is endemic to all Nationalist attempts to govern the country; they are always in a dilemma. Let me start from the beginning. When they first took over office 22 years ago they found themselves talking over an administration which was carrying out a dynamic immigration policy instituted by Gen. Smuts. What did they do? They set about at once to squash it. They cancelled the shipping arrangements made by Gen. Smuts for transporting the immigrants and through administrative red tape they squashed immigration altogether. Sir, do not let them talk about “the good and the bad”. When Mr. Trollip was appointed Minister of Immigration by the Nationalist Government we asked him in this House, “How do your criteria differ from those applied by the United Party,” and he said “Not at all”. When he became Minister of Immigration under the Nationalist Government he applied the United Party policy which this Government had scrapped. Sir, what is their dilemma? Why did they scrap that immigration scheme? Because they were in a dilemma. The real reason, which was given in this House, is “dat hulle bang was dat die Afrikaner ondergeploeg sou word”. [Interjections],

The hon. member for Queenstown, the Minister of Planning, supported us then; he was in favour of our policy in 1948. He changes his views so often that it is difficult to know what policy he is supporting at any one time. As I have said, General Smuts’ immigration plan was cancelled because although they wanted immigrants, they wanted to get them from Europe, but their problem was that without exception all the countries of Europe are Catholic countries and they did not want Catholics. The only Protestant countries in the Western world are the English-speaking countries. Whenever they held public meetings and their followers said to them, “Wat gebeur nou? Kyk hoeveel Katolieke bring julle in”, their reply was, “Ja, maar hulle is nie Engels nie”. At other meetings when they were asked about all the English immigrants coming to this country, they would say, “Ja, maar nulle is nie Katolieke nie”. They are always in a dilemma, Sir.

The difficulties that they experienced in carrying out their immigration policy, they are encountering now in trying to implement their apartheid policy or their “baasskap” policy or their separate development policy or, as it is now called, their multi-national development policy. Sir, this Government led people to believe that it could bring about complete separateness not only between the Bantu and the Whites but also between the Bantu and the other non-Whites. They tried to apply this policy, and what have they done? In order to be able to apply it they have to find definitions; they have to define the different races; and they are still trying to find definitions. Year after year they try to define who is white and who is non-white.

Sir, we had the problems before that they are encountering now. We had foreign warships visiting us without any embarrassment; we had non-white diplomats here before without any embarrassment. We had mixed football and cricket teams coming here without embarrassment. Why is this Government always embarrassed? It is always embarrassed for this one reason: it has a fetish for putting everything down in writing. If anybody expresses the idea of separateness it has to be put down in writing. This fetish has spread from Department to Department and if there are not enough Departments to carry out their ideas, they create further Departments [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Fauresmith should at least whisper in such a way that I do not hear every word he is saying.

With this growth of bureaucracy and the establishment of more and more Departments to try to carry out their ideological policy, we find, of course, that our manpower gets scarcer and scarcer. Sir, their policy of separate development was formulated by an idealist without having any regard to its practicability, but his influence on his colleagues in the Cabinet was so great that with the exception of one Minister, the Minister of Transport, who is not here to-night, they all followed that policy slavishly. The Minister of Transport pays lip-service to it, but then does what he likes and he does not carry out what was envisaged then. While Dr. Verwoerd was alive he exercised his influence not only here in Parliament but outside Parliament as well and people believed that he could carry out his policy. However, he was not given time for us to see how he was going to implement that policy, and his successors have been left with a general direction or blueprint, but not with detailed specifications for the implementation of the policy with the result that to-day they are groping. All those not closely connected with the administration, financiers, economists and journalists who normally support the Government, are now beginning to ask questions and—this is important —they are not getting answers to their questions.

They get different answers.

Sir, in the censure debate last month the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development himself intervened and summarized the duty of the Government in the implementation of its policy in, as he said, six words: “Do your duty by the nations.” Sir, we do not care whether he does his duty by a nation or the nations, all we ask and all the country asks is that he should do his duty by South Africa. Sir, my Leader has pointed out that unless South Africa becomes economically strong no policy can be successfully applied, and he pleaded for maximum economic growth, a growth rate which would make us one of the big nations of the world, with improved living standards for all. Sir, the danger of stagnation which faces us now is a threat to our very way of life.

Which way of life?

The way of life that we know—a civilized way of life. The Prime Minister has stressed himself that the greatest danger we face in South Africa is unemployment and he is quite right. I would like to point out that there is unemployment already.

Where?

There is unemployment in the reserves. The hon. member for Brakpan has been in the Transkei lately; just a pity he did not walk down to the labour offices to see the hundreds of Bantu standing outside the labour offices every day. They are standing outside the offices trying to get away from work. In the Transkeian Legislative Assembly the Chief Minister himself and others on their Government side express their great concern at the corruption which is taking place in the labour offices of the Transkei. For what reason? Natives have to buy permits to go out to work. They are not trying to buy a bottle of liquor; all they want is a permit to go out and work and they have to pay for it. They will not do that if they are not looking for work. They want work and especially at this time they have to work. The work is there for them, but what is happening? The African is working illegally and that is how industry is growing; especially the building industry. I am not the only one to say it. Hon. members have heard it from others and they can ask any of the builders and they will find that that is the case. The building industry is kept going by Africans who work there illegally. If their labour was not required the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development or the Deputy Minister would not have found it necessary to introduce his Bill at the beginning of this year, to amend section 20 of the Bantu Labour Act and finally to publish his notice. Why is he publishing a notice prohibiting Bantu in certain areas? If their labour is not required, they would not be there but employers want them and he is trying to stop them from taking the Bantu. This Government is so obsessed with ideology that it rushes into legislation. Acts and actions without considering the case at all. I take the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration as an example. He published one notice on 3rd April and now, five months later, he publishes another notice. The notice he published on 3rd April gave notice of the intention to prohibit Bantu from being employed in certain categories of work and this was to be made effective within a month. Now, five months later, he has published another notice which is completely different from the first one; it also has to be applied within a month’s time. We have tried to find out from the hon. the Minister what the effect is of this notice he is publishing. However, we cannot find out. Why not? Why can he to tell us how many people are going to be affected? Either the number is so small that it makes nonsense of the legislation or it is so large that he is afraid to tell the country, which also makes nonsense of his legislation. The public is entitled to know what the Ministers are up to. Everyone thinks there is something fishy about it. He says that he has information, but what we suspect is that the information which he has is so casual and incomplete that he knows if he produces it, he will become a laughing stock and be laughed out of court. This is a democratic country and we are not in a state of war, except for the Nationalist Party, which is in a state of civil war and there is no reason why we should suffer just because he is having trouble within his own ranks. In the first session of this year, the Government was so …

What about Douglas Mitchell?

What about Jack Basson?

Jack Basson can talk for himself. Jack Basson is not governing the country and I am talking of what you are doing to the country. This is a democratic government!

In the first session of this year the Government, quite out of touch with the people and not knowing the strength of the insurgents in its ranks, pushed through that apartheid legislation which I have referred to. The Government hoped this apartheid measure would stifle the rebellion from the true Nationalists, the verkramptes in the Nationalist Party. The Deputy Minister and his colleague said that the measure, which gave him the power to prohibit Africans from doing certain work, would end the economic integration.

That is nonsense.

You have said it yourself in this House. I have some more to say to that hon. Minister. He must just wait a minute. When things seemed to be going badly with him in April, the Deputy Minister, just before the election, published his notice of the work he intended prohibiting. And there was nothing apologetic or uncertain about it; he said it was the coup de grace to economic integration. He was the man who was proud to announce it. We all remember what the reaction to that notice was. It is difficult to say which announcement, this announcement by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, or the one by the Minister of Mines on Mr. Oppenheimer, did the Government more harm. The Prime Minister obviously thought that the one by the Minister of Mines was more serious and that is why he was relieved of that post as soon as it was decently possible. It does not help for the hon. the Minister of Mines to say that the portfolio of Planning always goes to the most junior Minister. If he looks at the incumbents of that portfolio in the past he will see that it was not always held by the most junior Minister. Furthermore, he took pride in saying the night before the election that he himself would in future deal with any application by Mr. Oppenheimer for labour.

The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development rushed in to save his Deputy Minister and made a long statement full of excuses. He said it was only the intention and that did not mean that he was going to do it and that everything was not so bad as was made out. It is interesting that both the notices of the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education and that of the hon. the Minister of Mines affected labour. They were at pains to try and show the verkramptes in their ranks that they were dealing with the question of integration in labour. They have both fallen down.

Labour has become the Achilles heel of this Government and the shortage of suitable labour for our development is being stressed not only by the United Party supporters, but by everybody who is interested in production to-day. Everybody knows that there has not been any worthwhile development in the reserves. The Government is now preparing the country for economic integration. It is going to be controlled integration. I cannot help feeling sorry for the poor newspapermen. Before the session started we understood from Dagbreek that there was going to be a bomb from the hon. the Prime Minister and then nothing happened. Then Dagbreek, still looking for something from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, said the other day that he should announce the independence of the Transkei. Just see to what lengths they are prepared to go to get something from the hon. the Minister. Yesterday the faithful Vaderiand announced that they are expecting an important announcement on labour from the hon. the Minister of Labour. But what did he say? Nothing at all.

The Argus said so.

Here I have the article as it appeared in Die Vaderiand. The Argus obtained the article from Die Vaderiand. In order to prepare the Nationalists Die Vaderiand said the following—

Die Vaderiand is trying to prepare the people beforehand that this is not going to be economic integration. Let us look at the first notice published by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. He was going to prohibit the employment of Bantu as counter assistants, receptionists, telephonists, clerks, cashiers, or typistes outside a scheduled Bantu area and excluding the border areas. The new notice, published five months later, is three pages long instead of one and it names completely different areas which are going to be excluded. This notice excludes all the towns and villages in the Transkei, three in the Ciskei and some in Natal, but does not exclude the border areas. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell me, if he had given it proper thought, why the border areas were excluded in the first place. Surely his Department did not rush into it wildly and prohibit just anything. If they gave it any thought, as they should have, I would like to know why they excluded the border areas then. Why has it been found necessary now to use such a different definition of what work can be done and what cannot be done? In the first notice all work was excluded, but now they can work after hours or in separate rooms. Why? Because they have found out now that this labour is required and that we cannot do without it. I should like to know why it is wrong for a Bantu to serve a white woman or a man in a shop and not in other places such as a filling station or a cafe? Do hon. members know why? Because they cannot find anybody else to do the work at the filling stations. So it becomes quite right then. There is nothing wrong. Then there is no offence created. If a Bantu does the work which nobody else will do, then, of course, it is quite in order. So, as far as filling stations are concerned, he is allowed to serve there. Of course, Sir, if that did cause an offence, and they did have to stop employing Bantu, the Ministers and all other members on that side know very well that the filling stations would all close down after hours, because there would be nobody on duty.

The question the Government must ask, is “What will happen to all the Bantu?” Work has to be found for them somewhere. They have to work somewhere. The Government are hoping that they can send them back to the reserves, but their policy with regard to the development of the reserves has fallen flat. The policy has been to develop the borders of the reserves. But the borders of the reserves cannot take up all the manpower that is available. They know very well that, unless they go into the reserves themselves and develop the reserves inside, they cannot possibly hope to accommodate the Bantu. Professor Moolman is quite right. This whole idea of border industries is lopsided. All the people in the Native areas will be flocking down to the borders of the reserves, where the industries are established. All the towns will have to be established there. I ask again, how is it going to help the Transkei, if there is not one area on the border of the Transkei suitable for border development? The Government now says that they are going to establish White industries in the reserves on the agency basis in desperation for something new. Of course, they will say that this is not new and that they thought of it a long time ago. But they have to remember one thing, from which they cannot get away. This Government has been in power for 22 years. If they were seriously intending to carry out their policy, they could have done something before now. Why do they only start the agency system now? I put the question the other day to ask how many people are employed on the agency basis, because one always hears the Minister telling with pride how many white people are interested in establishing business through agencies. He replied:

Sir, what is that? That is all they are going to employ, in due course, 1,610 labourers.

What is funny about that?

It is not funny. That is the point. This whole agency scheme is not working.

You are too stupid to understand that.

I do not mind what he says. I take it whence it comes. I ask the Minister to get up and tell us how many more people he hopes to employ in this scheme. Let him tell us what he is doing in the Transkei with the agencies. Give us the facts; don’t hide anything. We are trying to find out the terms of agreement. We cannot find that out. Nobody knows who the agents are. I ask him, who can apply for agencies? Who can try and get it?

I won’t tell you.

No, you will not, exactly!

I won’t tell you!

Why will the Minister not tell the public what the position is?

I will give you what is necessary. I won’t tell you,, for very good reasons.

There is the Xhosa Development Corporation, which has been operating in the Transkei. I asked how many were employed. The reply was that 3,567 Bantu were employed by the Xhosa Development Corporation. Do hon. members know what the average pay is?—R29 a month! [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really believe in “stargazing”, but I do find myself in a somewhat difficult position at the moment. While I was reading the Argus last Saturday evening I saw under “Star Gazing” under my sign of the zodiac, Leo, the following—

This Budget debate spotlighted many interesting facets. I should like to draw the attention to only a few of these facets. The first very interesting facet spotlighted by this Budget debate was the fact that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did not have the courage of his convictions to repudiate the hon. member for South Coast. Let us analyse this matter now to some extent. What did the Mitchell episode reveal. I shall tell hon. members what it revealed. It revealed the divided soul and the cloven hoof of the United Party. The United Party still does not realize what has hit it as a result of the speech of the hon. member for South Coast. Why does it not realize this? It is because it does not realize that the sum total of the credibility of the United Party as regards the labour question in the Republic of South Africa has been completely destroyed. This is what has happened. Their labour offensive, which was inflated out of all proportions in their newspapers and by those hon. members themselves in this debate, constituted their main attack on the National Government. Now it is lying in fragments at their feet, because their credibility, their cloven hoof and their doubleheartedness were revealed in this debate. The one story is Mitchell for Klip River. Jake Jacobs, of Hillbrow, Fourie of Turffontein and Stephens of Florida propagate the other story. This is a feature of the United Party we have to come to know well.

The second and very important facet which was clearly revealed in this Budget debate is that we now know what attitude the United Party is adopting with regard to the matter of labour in our country. What is this attitude, as it very cleary crystallized? That attitude is, according to the Leader of the Opposition, that as more and more Bantu are absorbed into our White industries, so the Whites will be advanced to higher positions. At the top we shall therefore have a white layer, and no individual, whatever his capability may be, will be allowed to rise from this strong, massive sublayer of Bantu workers to any position higher than that of a White. That is the attitude of the United Party. Have hon. members ever heard in any country of the world a better recipe than this for bringing about an explosion? At the same time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition pleaded for a “crash programme of education,” as he called it. How is it possible for one to talk such nonsense? After a time the hon. member for Houghton could no longer stand this, and she put one question after the other to the hon. member for Hillbrow, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Transkei. She gave them such a dressing-down that they eventually became dumbstruck. Can one imagine for one moment any Party in any civilized country propagating the creation of a top layer consisting of Whites who are to be pushed up as more and more Bantu are absorbed into industries, without any opportunity for the Bantu to rise to positions above those of the Whites? Surely this is the best recipe one can possibly have for bringing about an explosion. There is only one better recipe for bringing about an explosion, and do hon. members know whose recipe that is? This, too, is the recipe of the United Party, and what is this other recipe for bringing about an explosion? That recipe is to give 14 million black people a mere eight representatives in this House. This kind of politics is nothing but dangerous politics.

I should like to draw the attention to one other matter. These things are of vital importance and it is for the people to judge them. The people will have to give a judgement not only on the cloven hoof of the United Party, but also on the labour policy, which was spotlighted in this debate. I want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton, who launched attacks on the United Party. I said in my opinion she was not able to restrain herself from doing so, and I do not blame her for that. But there is something more behind that than this. Why was the United Party unable to reply to her fair questions? I shall give you the reason. The cloven hoof is the reason. If they were to come into power, they would be able to reply to the questions of that hon. member because they would be following the very policy advocated by that hon. member. At the moment they cannot reply to her. Why not? It is because the hon. member for Newton Park is so Afrikaans now that he no longer refers to the editor of Dagbreek as Dirk Richard but as Dirk “Riegardt”. The United Party is trying to catch the voters and to throw dust in their eyes.

But we learned other very interesting things in this debate. This afternoon we had, inter alia, a speech from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, which is of more than passing interest. I should like to call it a real coalition speech. I want to tell the hon. member at once that we on this side of the House want no part of that. I think I am able to prove that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout repudiated his own Leader at least twice. I quote—

This is the policy of our National Party.

Read on and you will see what he was saying.

Do not try to put me off my stride. The hon. member said he accepted that we were a multi-national country. Yesterday we all heard the Leader of the United Party saying here that South Africa consisted of 20 million people. Surely there is a world of difference between these two statements. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout went further than that. He referred to our multi-national set-up. He comes as close as possible to that. He said one had an independent people in Malawi as well as in Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland. He said our Zulu and our Xhosa were much better peoples. He then put the question how it was possible that these homelands in this country had not yet gained their independence. His Leader said only yesterday that these homelands would never be able to get independence, as economically they were not capable of independence. [Interjections.] I say he comes very close to that. He referred to that twice. At the moment the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Transkei are feeling ill at ease in their seats. They should study his speech. They will have to give some attention to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. They are blowing hot and cold.

However, there is one other very important thing which was revealed in this debate by the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member said—

Now I want to ask: Is this a new policy which the United Party is advocating here now? It is a very good thing the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spotlighted their booklet “You want it—we have it” so well. I went to consult their booklet. On this vital matter, the one in respect of which they are bringing pressure to bear on us to state our policy—and I am going to do so in a moment—they say in the vaguest terms conceivable something which surprises me for not having realized it before. They say—

Whereas the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has always given us the impression that the reserves will have a status more or less equal to that of a province, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout told us this afternoon that those Bantu areas could develop much further than a province. He said they would be able to develop to local, autonomous units within the framework of the federal state of the United Party. I should like to hear from those hon. members what they are going to tell the people when they have to explain at what stage a homeland in South Africa constitutes an autonomous unit, especially against the background of the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout this afternoon in which he came as close as possible to delivering a plea for the independence of these homelands. We want to know from the United Party what their attitude is in this regard.

But I am not through with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout yet. In the last no-confidence debate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a speech on “dogma versus democracy”. I have had another look at his speech, Mr. Speaker, do you know on what he, and it is hardly possible to believe this, based that speech? The dogma, what is dirty and what is ugly of the National Party and the National Government, he based on a notice which he had not seen somewhere in South Africa but about which he had heard. That notice reads “Non-Whites and Goods”.

I was there. I saw it.

He then went to have a look at it. I now want to take him up on this matter. I want to tell him at once that I was born in this country and that I am not so very young anymore, but that I have never seen any notice in South Africa reading “Non-Whites and Goods”. Let me say at once that I despise that notice. There is not a single member on this side of the House who do not despise it. Why does that hon. member put that on the shoulders of this National Government? “Non-Whites and Goods” is something which is so rare that he had to take his father’s aircraft to go and have a look at that notice and to take a photo of it. He then made a speech on that matter in this House and blamed the National Government for that notice. He does not care one bit how that besmirches South Africa’s good name overseas.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

No, Sir, my time is very limited. I say I take the strongest exception to that sign. I want to make the request here in public that if that sign, which I believe is the only one of its kind in South Africa, has not been removed, it should be removed at once. However, I blame that hon. member much more than I resent that sign, for the speech he made here on one such exceptional case and for basing the dogma of the National Party on that. This is the kind of tactics followed by those hon. gentlemen.

But that hon. member went further than that. On the basis of that single sign he said that under National rule incidents in South Africa would become chronic. What a disgrace! In the position I occupy I shall do everything in my power to ensure that under our policy incidents will not become chronic, but will gradually be decreased until such incidents will no longer occur. We shall do this under National Party policy which is based on an attitude of live and let live and justice and the principle that what one demands for oneself one should grant to the next man.

I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that the sign is in the building which houses the Publications Board.

I have already said I shall be very grateful if that sign is removed, and I have expressed myself as being opposed to that kind of incident.

But now I want to say something about the positive dimension of our relations politics in South Africa, and I want to do so against a specific background. It is that we on this side of the House admits that the implementation of the multi-national policy to its logical conclusion is not an easy task. We admit that it is an involved one which puts the highest demands to flesh and blood; it is a task visualized many long years ago by Gen. Hertzog when he foresaw that here in South Africa the Bantu would develop “if possible, in an autonomous way”. On this difficult road which put the highest demands to and requires integrity from every person concerned in this matter, we are implementing this policy. We cannot take short-cuts; we cannot let things take their own course. We cannot get away from the implications it has, because the solution offered by this side of the House is a difficult road and a long one. But at the same time this solution along this difficult road offers the people of South Africa the realization of a grand ideal. I believe the grandest ideal with which any people can concern itself, and this ideal this side of the House is offering particularly to the youth of our nation, i.e. the maintenance of ourselves as a nation here on the southern-most point of Africa. No ideal is achieved along an easy road.

In contra-distinction to this, the road of the Opposition is a much easier one, everything expedient to the economy, a 10 per cent growth rate, 20 million people in the Republic of South Africa, everything expedient to the god with clay feet, and all other aspects are subordinate. This was again proved by the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made here yesterday. This has its attractions for everyone, for we are only human. On this United Party road shortcuts may be taken and the prize may be gained to-morrow or the day after to-morrow, because it offers immediate and greater prosperity and greater ease, greater wealth, everything nice and fine. But on what condition? The condition is that one sells the future of one’s people for a mess of pottage. And what are the ideals coupled to this? I have indicated that these gentlemen in this debate showed us the recipe for explosion as far as their labour policy and leadership policy are concerned, but now I go further.

The ultimate end of this nice, wide and convenient road of everything being subservient to the economy, the god with the clay feet, is black domination. Let me also say here with the utmost responsibility that to those people and their policy, so much so that he has become to them what Father Kestell is to us—one may not touch him. Why are they sitting so quietly? That is why I say this is the ideal of those people. For that reason I say this to and fro talking we had here with the hon. member for Houghton in the past week, however fine it might appear from the outside, will result in one thing only as sure as fate. That is black domination in South Africa and in this House. It is inevitable, and this is the analysis of present politics in South Africa. I am sad when I say this: Ideal is not being pitted against ideal, and principle is not being pitted against principle. The recipe of the United Party is this: Disparage the person; murder him politically; eliminate him, because then you are disparaging the National Government. No method is inadmissible in the new politics we are now getting in South Africa.

Sir, what it amounts to, as has been said, is that we on this side maintain that we have in South Africa eight Bantu people and one white people. I say there is a positive dimension to our relations politics, and I wish I had the time to indicate to you the chronological course of history in this regard. I would indicate how the National Government was engaged in that first decade in this difficult task of establishing Bantu authorities, a department of Bantu Education, university colleges and all those aspects, and how that first decade came to an end when that great son of South Africa, Dr. Verwoerd, delivered his striking and historical speech from that bench in 1959 with the introduction of the Promotion of Bantu Self-Government Act. At that time he first held out to this country the prospect of the Bantu being able to develop politically on their own course. I would indicate how the second decade was a tremendously difficult one, i.e. to bring about this political set-up ushered in in 1959, one prophetically foreseen by Gen. Hertzog as long ago as 1925 and before. I would indicate how we succeeded during those 10 years up to 1969 in giving every Bantu people in the Republic of South Africa not only its own Assembly, but also its own government departments, which at present employ more than 66,000 Bantu officials. We have succeeded in creating Bantu peoples here; whereas, under the policy of the Leader of the Opposition, we would otherwise have had only one Prime Minister for 20 million people, we at present have 18 white Ministers and 48 Bantu Ministers in this country, we have 48 Bantu departmental secretaries in their own homelands and we have 66.000 Bantu officials in their Public Services. And yet they say nothing is being done. This is a powerful political set-up, and I believe world politics do not offer any achievement readily comparable to this political set-up we have created, one in which each Bantu people had its own government at the end of 1969. To them it is a myth, a pipedream, a chasing after the end of the rainbow. What foolishness!

And now we are at the beginning of the third dynamic decade, and let me say here with the utmost emphasis that we have particularly three important objectives in this chronological course of a multi-national development which cannot take place overnight. I want to put these three objectives to you, Sir. Firstly, it definitely is the objective to lead the Bantu peoples to autonomy, as they are capable of that, in this third dynamic decade, and we shall not run away from the moral implications of our policy, and God willing, we shall achieve this objective. We have a second objective, and this constitutes a tremendous challenge to our youth; these are not things which can be made to appear from nowhere overnight. These are things which are virtually too much for flesh and blood to take; to implement these ideals as this man on my right is doing with great distinction. But that is trampled upon by those gentlemen who do not know what they are talking about. To them it is a pipedream. They are trampling upon the soul not only of our people but also of all the Bantu peoples. Are these the politics in which we are engaged?

The second objective we set—and I say the youth can hardly have a greater challenge than this—is that these Bantu homelands will have to be consolidated. This is a phenomenal and virtually superhuman task; we realize this and I realize this, but the National Government has never flinched away because any problem was too difficult. Our policy has always been to face up squarely to problems, to tackle them and to remedy them. This we shall also do with regard to the consolidation of the homelands.

When?

I should like to put the question whether those hon. members will help us to do so? [Interjections.] That is why I was so interested in the speech on independence made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout to-night.

The third objective we set in this dynamic decade, the positive dimension in our relations politics, is this, and I do not believe any people has ever faced a greater challenge than this. It is, where this political set-up has been created with difficulty over a period of 20 years and more, to give economic substance to the political set-up which has been created and, in plain language, to develop those homelands as rapidly as possible. Let there be no doubt in the mind of anybody in this House or in this country about one thing, and that is that in this decade the economic development of these homelands will take place at a considerably more rapid rate. It is inevitable. Steps for ensuring that this will happen have already been taken. Sir, last year in February I told the hon. member for South Coast in this House that we would show him 50 industries in the homelands within a period of three years, and at that time he said that was impossible. Sir, to-day, a year-and-a-half later, I can say to him with certainty that we shall show him 100 industries there within two years. Temba already is virtually fully occupied, and yet the hon. member for Transkei, the shadow minister of the United Party, comes forward with statements here about the small number of Bantu being employed in the Transkei, etc. He does not even know that in terms of economic laws one first has to create an economic growth point, one cannot create industries there by uttering a magic formula; it is a difficult and laborious process.

Now I want to approach the Opposition in all seriousness about these three objectives to which the entire future and the peaceful coexistence of every man and woman in this country, Whites and Blacks alike, are very closely connected, and I want to ask hon. members opposite: What are you doing to help us in this tremendous task of the economic development of the homelands? What are you doing except disparaging and destroying, whereas you admit in this booklet setting out your policy that you also believe in the economic development of the homelands? I want to make the statement here tonight that particularly our English-speaking friends in the Republic of South Africa would have come more to the fore to avail themselves of the benefits being offered on the agency basis were it not for the attitude of that side of this House. I am charging the Opposition squarely of having come between us and those English-speaking people who would otherwise have come forward to avail themselves of those benefits. I am asking the Opposition to come forward to assist us instead of simply attacking us in this critical way, because this matter concerns not only the Government but the whole nation. It intimately concerns the weal and woe of all of us.

Sir, I have a whole number of figures here I can furnish to hon. members so as to illustrate to them how much progress we have made. I am prepared to say that we in the Department of Bantu Administration frankly say that the introduction of television will be of inestimable value to us because it will enable us to show to the nation and to those people who do not want to believe, what has been achieved in connection with these homelands. Sir, I want to point out one single facet to you. Last year alone we had more than 100 mining leases on the agency basis in the homelands. I want to point out to you that in 1959 Dr. Eiselen, who is one of the leading authorities on our Bantu policy in this country, outlined at East London the outstanding achievements of the National Government up to 1959. He said at that time the outstanding achievement of the National Government in that era was the solving of the problem of Bantu housing, the problem of shanty towns in white South Africa. Sir, I may tell you that in 1968, 10 years later, the Department of Community Development made available R9 million for Bantu housing in the white area of South Africa. Do you know how much of that amount was taken up? Only R6 million. Last year the Department of Community Development made available R12 million for Bantu housing in white South Africa. Do you know what amount was taken up? Only R9 million.

I have to conclude. I want to remind you of the words of the late Dr. Malan, which are very applicable to our present political setup; he said (translation) —

I am charging the Opposition with trampling upon the soul of this nation for the sake of economic expediency.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the initial year of a new decade, a decade that holds a great deal for us that is unknown—perhaps many problems, but also many opportunities, opportunities to build on the prosperity and on the security of the future of our people. The Budget which was presented here by the hon. the Minister of Finance is symbolic to me of this period we are now entering. We are standing before a period of great opportunities, wonderful opportunities in a wonderful country, but not necessarily a lotus land, as the Opposition would like to suggest in their fantasy dreams, a land in which one will virtually pick up gold in the streets. The opportunities we shall have in this decade, for which this Budget is making provision, will be determined by the physical and spiritual endeavours of the South African people.

Specifically for that reason I find the most outstanding characteristic of this Budget to be the recognition of the increasing importance of the most important of our resources in this country, the brainpower and the capacity for work of our youth. This year the hon. the Minister of Finance made provision for an increase of no less than 25 per cent in the subsidy to higher education, to universities, something that has never before happened in the history of the country. Then there is the particular encouragement to donators, companies and now also individuals, who want to contribute to the funds of universities or institutions for technological education. Sir, all this is an indication that in the decade that lies ahead, in which hard work will have to be done, in which problems will have to struggled with, we place our hopes on the youth; and as a matter of fact we are saying by implication that the young people of our country will be our greatest aid.

But I believe that it must not end with this endeavour by the State in respect of our young people. Each one of us in a position of responsibility, every parent, every adult person, must also realize the responsibility towards the youth and must likewise invest in the youth. The other day I read an interesting article in the Star which stated—

Then the article quoted what the principal of a school said about the matter—

Sir, I say that the responsibility must not only rest with the State. Even though the State is now making this wonderful contribution this year, I believe that we must all cry out for the parent and every adult to help assume their responsibilities as well in the education of our youth. I think that we all have reason to be proud of our youth, their conduct and their sense of responsibility, as well, as their particular interest in the future of our country, in which they will also have to work and live. We must at all times hold up to our young people the opportunities and also the challenges which the decade ahead will offer them, so that there will be no incitement for them to lapse into the clutches of drugs and deviate behaviour, which are such a general occurrence elsewhere in the world. A youth which has an ideal and something to work for, as the previous speaker said here, will utilize his energy for that purpose and will not lapse into this kind of thing.

Yesterday in his maiden speech, which in my opinion was a very informative speech, the hon. member for Turffontein said that a communications gap was developing between the present older generation and the youth, and he had a few words to say about that. I want to agree with him in that connection and say that it must be the continual task of all of us to try to bridge the gap. We as legislators are, of necessity, giving shape to the body of the future South Africa, which will have to take shape within the framework of certain basic necessities. Specifically for that reason the eyes of our young people are continually focused on us as legislators. Sometimes their eyes are focused on us because of an urgency to know more, and sometimes they are very critical because they do not always fully understand the extent and correlation of our numerous problems. Nevertheless they always do so with the naturally searching spirit of youth. They question us, on both sides of the House, directly, because as the hon. member for Turffontein rightly said yesterday, the youth like consistency and clarity. They also have a legitimate claim to know how the South Africa of the future is going to look, because it will also be their sphere of work and habitation. The youth are acquainted with many of the problems of our country, problems we are saddled with through history and circumstance, and they would like to co-operate in planning to solve those problems.

Therefore in our communications with the youth we dare not be anything but straightforward and honest. It would be foolishness to bring them under the impression that, as a result of the prosperity we have experienced in the past decade, there is a dolce vita future in store for our country. It is our task to impress upon the youth that apart from the big decisions that may await us in this decade, there are also great risks. In referring to risks I want to mention that it is not a question of this or that political policy, but a question of the total threat against us, with which we shall have to live, as the hon. the Minister of Defence brilliantly described it a while ago. Our young people did not grow up in a time of tension and of war that affected us locally, and talk of a possible military threat may sound remote to them; and yet it is becoming an increasing reality.

Our youth has a decisive role to play, i.e. in meeting that continual and total threat against us. That is the all-prevailing risk with which our country is going to be faced in the decade ahead, and it is our task and our duty to call upon youth to accompany us along that road. Knowing the country’s problems the youth also look at how we, as legislators, attempt to solve these problems. Yesterday the hon. member for Turffontein said that the youth like clarity and consistency. In this debate one of the big questions of the decade and of the moment came to the fore, i.e. the manpower question. This evening I want to say that the eyes of our young people are sharply focused on us, to see how we are trying to seek a solution to this problem before us. It is a problem that was not created by this or that party, it is one that necessarily has to come to the fore.

It was created by you.

The hon. member will not get past young people with that kind of remark. Our population has increased over generations and we had, of necessity, to reach this point. The development was indeed created by this Government, and that is why this manpower shortage developed. The test for South Africa, in the situation in which we are now living, is whether we should do what the Opposition advocates but are too spineless to carry out. A while ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a speech here in Cape Town. He spoke of a “revolutionary plan” to meet this labour situation. But what is there in that plan that one can present to the young people telling them that this or that can be done? That is why I have spoken this evening of the youth’s approach to these matters. Yesterday the hon. the Minister of Labour asked the hon. the Leader of the Opposition what he would do in certain trades. However, he could not reply to the hon. the Minister on any of the questions. Hon. members opposite are laughing, but I think our young people have reason to laugh. The hon. member for South Coast also made a speech in this House the other day. A great deal has already been written about this in the newspapers, and quite a bit has been said about it in this House.

In your newspapers.

The hon. member for Hillbrow should have read the Natal Mercury of the following day. He may now go and read about it in any English-speaking newspaper. He may also read about it in Hansard. Hon. members opposite subsequently said that that speech was concerned with security. That is what our young people do not like. I now quote the words of the hon. member for South Coast from Hansard, column 1139, of the 5th August, …

That Hansard is worn out by now.

I am going to quote from it to clarify the point concerned. In the translated version Mr. Mitchell stated the following—

It is therefore concerned with a question. Hon. members opposite claim that it is a question of security, but we claim that this is not so. It was concerned with a specific point of principle. The hon. member for South Coast objected most strongly to Bantu being employed as gangers on that railway line in Natal.

Who were not trained.

No, he said nothing about training. However, I shall reply to the hon. member on that. The hon. the Minister of Transport said that those people were, in fact, trained. This is what your young people look at. Let us test the matter. Here it is not only a particular case of a split personality. I know the hon. member for South Coast well, and I know that he is an honest man. Although I disagree with him, I have a great deal of respect for him. I think he broached this subject in this House in a moment of rashness.

He meant it.

Yes, but he was ordered not to raise it here. I want to tell this House this evening that it is general practice for front benchers on the Opposition side of the House to express the same sentiments as the hon. member for South Coast expressed here when they are addressing meetings in the far-off country districts. I regret that the hon. member for South Coast is not here while I am now speaking about him, and I also regret that the other member I am going to speak about is not here this evening, but I must do it.

Because Die Burger says so.

That hon. verkrampte member for Simonstown believes in the saying: “As the old cock crows, so crows the young,” and now he wants us to do the same. No, I am not going to tell him what he already knows very well, because he is pre-eminantly the man who goes to make the same speeches as the Hertzogites in the far-off Karoo and in the Free State. But the hon. member for Yeo-ville held a meeting at Upington earlier this year, before this Session began. I am not going to relate everything he said there. When he himself is here I shall probably deal with other aspects. But about this same aspect of the Bantu he expressed the same sentiments and was cheered by the United Party audience there. Do you know what he said about the National Party’s homelands policy? He said (translation):

But, Sir, those are the people to whom they want to give the vote so that they may send members to this House. There are their primitive barbarians, and here, in the mouth of the hon. member for South Coast, they do not have the sense of responsibility to be gangers. But the Leader of the Opposition says that he wants to take revolutionary steps to overcome the labour situation. It is such matters that are disturbing our young people, this double-talk. Why come along and tell this story on one platform, and when one is hidden from the watchful eye of the Press and others go along and tell another story on the far-off plains?

Earlier this evening the hon. member for Transkei spoke here about immigration. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Yeoville said there at Upington about immigration and about the scheme that is now in progress? He said (translation):

You see, Sir, this sounds to me very much like the language I heard from a certain other party.

But I want to continue with the Bantu question. In the course of this debate we also heard pleas to the effect that in the process of the increased provision of labour more should be spent on Bantu labour. What did the hon. member for Yeoville tell the United Party members in the country districts of Upington? He said (translation):

Then one gets “hear, hears” from the United Party members there. This is the kind of ambiguity that our young people cannot and will not tolerate. Here I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that if he entertains any hopes of the young people supporting his party because they say to-day that they are South Africans, he is making the biggest mistake of his life. The young people are interested in a party that is honest, in a party that can bring forward ideals, and not in a party that engages in ambiguous utterances and in the slandering of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, there used to be a chief information officer in the Nationalist Party. He was promoted to Minister of Information so that he could spend the taxpayers’ money advertizing the Nationalist Party. In his place they appointed the hon. member for Stellenbosch who just sat down. He was now the gentleman who was to build up the image of the Nationalist Party. He was going to present them to South Africa. He was going to write “skietgoed”. He was going to lay down their guide-lines. After the first election in this post the hon. gentleman received the Order of the Boot. They have now brought in a public relations officer to create a new image for the Nationalist Party. I do not know whether they did not like that hon. gentleman’s image. I do not. Do hon. members know who was appointed as the image-maker of the Nationalist Party? They have appointed a certain ex-Nationalist Party organizer, ex-information officer who in Durban went on record, in a public speech as a Nationalist Party organizer, as saying that the English-speaking people of Durban were Grey-ville louts. He said this in a Durban Parliamentary Debating Society. His opinion of the English-speaking people of Durban and Natal was that they were louts. That is the new public relations officer who is taking over to create a better image of the Nationalist Party.

The interesting thing about the hon. member who has just spoken, is that he is the fifth member on that side of the House who has tried to speak about the youth. Fortunately, on this side of the House, we do not have to use those who have passed the first flush of youth, like myself, to put the views of the youth. We have them here. We have a 24-year-old Member of Parliament, the hon. member for Florida, and a 26-year-old Member of Parliament for Turffontein. We do not have to accept from the information officer of the Nationalist Party, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, second-hand views of what the youth want and need and think. We not only have that knowledge in our party, but we have it in our Caucus. What is more, we have it growing in strength behind a party which is able to lead South Africa into the 1970s. That party’s roots are so far in the past that it cannot catch up with this decade and is being left behind.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister of Community Development has a lot to say here. I think we ought to introduce him to the new members on his side of the House. I do not think they have met him.

Do not tell them about my days with the United Party. Leave my dirty past alone.

I want to introduce the hon. the Minister of Community Development to the new members on the Government benches. There was once a pamphlet issued which said the following—

This pamphlet was signed “Yours sincerely, Blaar Coetzee”. The hon. the Minister listed 14 points in which he believed. The sixth point reads as follows, and I commend this to the absent Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration—

The heading of this pamphlet is “May I introduce to you … Blaar Coetzee”. According to this pamphlet, this is what the hon. the Minister thought of himself—

The hon. the Minister said that no party could solve the non-European policy.

When did I say that? What is the date of that pamphlet?

It was the 1958 election in North Rand if I remember correctly.

It was 1953. In 1958 I kicked out Marais Steyn.

Then it was only five years after this pamphlet that the hon. member who could never think of changing his policy was on the other side of the fence fighting one of his own colleagues. The man who will remain the idealist had changed within … [Interjections.] Earlier than that. It was in 1953 not 1958. But he changed in 1954. [Interjection.] But that is not the point. The point is that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration challenged us on this side of the House and said: What are you doing to help us to develop the homelands? That hon. Minister of Community Development believes that no party can do it alone. Now I want to quote from Hansard of 8th July, 1958 (Vol. 97, Col. 21) where my leader said the following—

We have offered our support. My hon. leader has offered the support of this side of the House in the development of the homelands on a realistic basis, a basis of meaning and one which can work. And what is the answer? It was rejected with contempt. The offer of a former leader of the United Party to take this question out of politics was rejected with contempt by the late Mr. Strydom and by the late Dr. Verwoerd. This hon. Deputy Minister wrote a thesis saying that migratory labour could never work.

When he took a doctorate at Oxford that was his thesis. And now he tells us that we are not prepared to help to develop the Bantu reserves. That hon. Deputy Minister has a lot to learn. When he says that there will be no coalition he does not have to tell us that. This side of the House will never be party to the destruction of South Africa’s security and future. We will never work hand in hand with a party destroying everything which our forefathers have built up in this country. He need not tell us anything about coalition because this side could never work together under a policy which has but one end for this country and that is the destruction of the leadership of the civilized section of our people and the destruction of Western standards. That hon. Minister need therefore not worry about that. He should rather worry about the notice boards in Government buildings. I challenge him now to undertake that his Government will withdraw job reservation on liftmen and restrictions which insist on separate lifts for goods and non-Whites in certain buildings.

Where?

All over. I can show them to you all over Durban. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the essence of this debate. We are nearing the end now of 25 hours of discussion at a time when the Government is at the crossroads and when South Africa is waiting almost with bated breath for the statements which are to lead South Africa to new horizons.

The hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech indicated that other Ministers would make statements on the labour situation. The hon. the Minister of Transport in his Budget speech said that his colleagues would later make statements in regard to the labour situation. The Nationalist Press has been blazoning it over headlines for weeks that in this debate the Nationalist Party would give a new lead to South Africa. What have we had? We have heard the hon. the Minister of Labour speak. At least he got up and made a noise for 30 minutes. In that 30 minutes he never once referred to the labour policy of the Government. The whole of that speech of 30 minutes was an attack on the Opposition, on the United Party. We have been told that there are new policies to come. Dagbreek warned nearly a year ago: “Skrik wakker, wit-man.” They warned: “Gevra: Nuwe Bloudruk vir apartheid.” Now we have had a speech from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, a speech in which there was nothing but platitudes and attacks and not a new idea on the policy of the Government. We were all waiting for the bomb that did not come, like the damp squib of the Prime Minister. It has brought us at this late stage of the debate before a simple, inescapable fact, namely that there is a labour crisis in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, one cannot dispute it. I have here the hon. the Minister of Labour’s own speech in this debate in which he spoke of "nog n tekort van 6,000 vakmanne in die in-genieursbedryf” and in which he said, “daar is ’n tekort van 2,000 werktuigkundiges in die motorbedryf”. Then again he said: “Laat ons nou die Staatsdiens neem. In die Staatsdiens het ons 'n tekort aan klerklike personeel.”

Why do you not give an answer?

I am going to answer him. The hon. the Minister said that there was a shortage of 4,600 workers in the building industry. He admits it. We have put forward from this side of the House what we believe is the solution. Then the hon. the Minister of Labour stands up but does not reply to our solution. He simply attacks us with the old fear tactics. Mr. Speaker, what has happened? The hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, and speaker after speaker on that side have tried to draw a red herring across the trail of this debate.

There is one single issue at stake. If a factory does not have the workers, it can do one of two things. It can either replace them with non-Whites, or it can close down. When it has tried mechanization and streamlining and still reaches that point of crisis, it either closes down or substitutes non-white workers. When the State reaches that stage, it either ceases to provide services or it employs non-Whites.

The Minister of Transport has faced that point on the Railways and has accepted the point of view of this side of the House. But what do we get? We get from that side of the House the red herring of one sentence taken out of a speech and held up as an example that this side of the House is divided. I want to-night once and for all to lay this ghost which has been haunting the Nationalist Party, a ghost which must be laid even if it means that Die Burger must come out with blank front pages and with blank spaces instead of leaders, because if they cannot write about this, they have nothing to write about. Sir, the Nationalist Party was in trouble on the Railway debate, and despite the Witchcraft Bill they called on Ben, the ’Mtagathi to try and mix up some potent potion which could re-inspire their people. He found an old rhino horn, he fed it to his side and Die Burger took it and suddenly they were a virile, fighting Government again. They now had something with which to try to draw attention away from the real issues which faced the Railways and the Cabinet. They took a local issue and the Minister of Transport tried to turn it into a non-existent political controversy. The following day the hon. member for South Coast said exactly what he had meant by his speech. He said that he was referring to the use of unqualified and untrained Bantu labour, specific Bantu on a specific railway line. [Interjections.]

That is not in Hansard.

Let them make a noise, but that is what the hon. member said. Last year the hon. the Minister of Transport said in this House that he would introduce non-white labour, whether the trade unions agreed or not, if it was in the interests of South Africa. This year he said he would not do it without the consent of the trade unions. Now I want to warn the Government that if they want to go on playing this cheap political game, then we are entitled to go round South Africa saying that the hon. the Minister of Transport will ignore and will override the trade unions and will put black men into white jobs irrespective of what the trade unions do. We will be entitled to do that, Sir. We will be entitled to say that the hon. the Minister of Information and Social Welfare, when he spoke at Empangeni, said that the Government would not allow Maoris into South Africa, and that the hon. member for Rissik was reported in Die Beeld as saying “geen gemengde spanne nie”. We shall be entitled to say that this is the policy of the Nationalist Party. We are entitled to say that the hon. the Minister of Defence said that the Coloured people would for ever have representation in this House. We are entitled to say that the Nationalist Party believes that total separation could never come about, because a Prime Minister of the Nationalist Party said that. If this Government wants to go on with this sort of underhand politics, this attempt to draw attention away from their own dilemma, we will use it against them in exactly the same way. The issue is, and it stands on record, that we on this side of the House are clear and unequivocal in our policy. We say that in the situation that faces South Africa we must make use of all the available manpower at our disposal. White and non-White must be used in the best interests of South Africa in order to build up our economy. But what is more, Sir, we go further. We not only say that the non-white labour resources must be used to build up the economy of our country, but we say how it should be done. We say it should be done by negotiation on the principle of collective bargaining with the trade union organizations of South Africa. But the difference is this, that on that side of the House the Government has nothing to offer the trade unions except fear. They have nothing to offer the trade union movement except the “swart gevaar” tactics which have kept them going for so long. But we as a Government will have for offer to the trade unions the vision of a new era in the economy of South Africa, an economy progressing not at the rate of 5 per cent but 10 per cent per annum, as my hon. Leader visualized; a policy utilizing the raw materials of South Africa, the wealth of our untapped resources, material and human, and combining within our growth process the exploitation of our natural resources through the skills, abilities, leadership and capital of the white man and the availability of all the labour which we have here in South Africa. It is not our policy to push millions of people back into camps into the Native areas where they live on a handful of rations dished out as charity by the Minister of Bantu Administration. We believe that every man willing and able to work should be given an opportunity to work, and therefore we will be able to take the trade unions with us. [Interjections.] We in the United Party will maintain influx control, but we will use it to provide a controlled flow of the needed labour. How does the Government use influx control? Here I have a report of 9th November from Die Beeld, which says—

Hundreds of factories close. They use influx control to close factories or to prevent factories from opening, to prevent factories from expanding, to separate husband from wife and to separate father from child, to separate human being from human being, to stifle the growth of South Africa. We, within the principles of the United Party, the principles of social and residential separation, the principle of white leadership and political control, will allow in the labour required to make South Africa the industrial giant of Africa and one of the industrial giants of the world. My hon. Leader challenged the Government in this debate. [Interjection.] Sir, I am not prepared to waste one second of my time on an hon. member, the hon. member for Vryheid, who can tell the untruths about the Natal Provincial Administration which he told to-day. I am dealing with issues that strike at the root of the future of South Africa and I say that we believe, as my hon. Leader believes, that if South Africa is to enjoy harmonious human relations between the races, if we are to have security, then the sine quo non is the economic strength of South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance himself said it. He saw the problem and he accepted that unless we have a strong economy, a breakdown of our economy will make it impossible to solve the problem of race relations.

I did not say that.

I have to watch the time, but I will quote him. He said—

Those were his words. We say we are not prepared to gamble or take a chance. We will see that our economy is strong. We will use all the human resources of South Africa but we will use them within the framework of South Africa’s needs. We will use them by consultation and by collective bargaining with the trade unions. We will use them to build up and not to break down. We will use them to enable South Africa to grow; to create for us the ability to take decisions in the future. The road which the Government is taking is a road which leaves no choice for to-morrow; they have embarked on a road of no return. Our policy, Sir, will give us the economic strength to be able to decide for ourselves, step by step, and generation by generation, what steps we will take next. This Government is prepared to commit us for all time to a policy the future of which they cannot foresee, the implementation of which they cannot even begin to put into effect, a policy which is nothing but a theoretical dream. The hon. the Deputy Minister goes into orbit about this policy which they have not yet implemented after 22 years of government!

Sir, after 22 years of government they cannot plead for time. We have had enough of quiz-kid tactics in this debate. We can also do that. The hon. the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs throw trick questions across the floor of the House to try to trap us into an unwary remark. They use quiz-kid tactics because they are not prepared to deal with their own policy; instead they try to throw trap questions across the floor of the House. Sir, we have been in politics for a long time; we do not fall for that sort of tactic. I can ask the hon. the Minister of Transport whether he believes that he should consult the trade unions when he employs non-Whites; I can ask the hon. the Minister of Labour whether he will stop services or make use of non-white labour; I can ask the hon. the Minister of Planning whether he agrees with the hon. member for Moorreesburg that the Coloureds are living in a twilight world on the Cape Flats although they are the partners of the white man. Sir, we can throw that sort of question across the floor of the House but that does not solve the problems of South Africa unless you answer these questions fully.

Sir, I have answered the question put to us as to what we will do to fill the present vacancies. We will make use of the resources of South Africa, of all the manpower of South Africa, but we will control that use; we will do it with the co-operation and with the consent of the trade unions, because we have something to offer them which they dare not refuse. The alternative would be to destroy South Africa and with it to destroy the security of the white worker. Because if you do not have non-Whites to work in the factories and for the State in South Africa, then there will be no State and there will be no factories for the white man to work in. His salary, his future, his children’s future will be at stake because there are not enough white men in South Africa to provide all the necessary services for 20 million people. The white workers of South Africa and the trade unions of South Africa are responsible enough not to undermine and destroy the future of their own members in order to put into effect an ideological dream which any thinking South African knows can never be realized.

Sir, we on this side of the House have faith in our people, in our white people; we have faith in South Africa; we have faith in the ability of our people to move forward without fear, to move forward with confidence, because we have on our side not only the faith and the vision but we have on our side the youth who are prepared to take risks, who are not chained to the past, who are not chained to history but who look to to-morrow and not back to yesterday. Sir, we are able to give the leadership of courage and confidence which this decade demands. The hon. the Minister and the Cabinet have failed South Africa; they have failed to give one answer to one problem in the whole of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with this clause. The object of this clause is the following: As South Africa is now competing on the overseas market, some of these countries are not prepared to allow our wine over there, unless our wines are derived from well-known varieties here in South Africa In other words, in terms of this clause the hon. the Minister is now going to prescribe that no person shall sell wine for drinking purposes under a name popularly or commercially used as a designation for wine, unless it is derived from a wine variety prescribed by regulation. Sir, it definitely is good protection for our indigenous wines to prescribe that the varieties and cultivars used must be of the best ones. But, on the other hand, our wine industry has developed over the years and various cultivars have been used in the course of time. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention that certain older strains must be done away with completely merely for the sake of the protection of the good name which South African wine enjo s overseas, or whether a long period of time will elapse before it becomes necessary for the wine farmer to get rid of his old vines completely? I think the hon. the Minister should give us clarity on this point.

Sir, this is an arrangement which is not of our own choosing, but which flows from the Common Market Agreement. However, I have ascertained that there are to-day hardly any varieties or cultivars which will be implicated, with the exception of a few later new ones. If it should happen that an old variety is perhaps implicated, we shall act as reasonably as possible so as not to disrupt the Specific group of farmers who have planted this cultivar.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the previous discussion of this Bill hon. members on that side tried to make a great deal of the fact that in 1962 there had been a discussion in this House on a motion introduced by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom. The hon. gentlemen on that side of the House tried to make out that there were some of us who agreed to the division of agricultural land eight years ago, but who are not prepared to support that principle now. It is essential, just for the purposes of the record, that we should ascertain what was in fact discussed in 1962. In 1962 the hon. member for Wakkerstroom moved the following (Hansard, volume II, column 511):

This is the motion that was introduced at that time. Either the hon. member for South Coast or the hon. member for Albany at that time moved an amendment to this motion, i.e. that the last part of this motion be omitted. In other words, we were not prepared to leave it in the hands of the provincial administrations, but we were in fact in favour of an investigation being instituted in order to determine whether it was necessary to combat the subdivision of land into uneconomic units. Hon. members on that side of the House have taken great delight in quoting my speeches during that debate. However, I am not the only person who took part in that debate. Why did we make the speeches that we did in fact make? It was because we were satisfied at the time that there was perhaps a case for combating the subdivision of agricultural land as a result of the Du Toit Report on the depopulation of the rural areas.

You did not quote from that report.

From what report did I quote then?

You expressed your own views.

The views, facts and figures which I quoted here, came from the Du Toit Report on the depopulation of the rural areas. The principle which we on this side of the House supported, was that there should be a commission of inquiry to investigate the matter thoroughly. However, I want to refer that hon. member to what his predecessor, Mr. Gerhard Bekker, had to say about this matter. What was Mr. Gerhard Bekker’s view? He said:

Then he continued:

In other words, even the then hon. member for Cradock realized the problems. Despite the fact that the hon. member supported the motion, his entire speech was full of references to its being almost impossible to define an economic or an uneconomic unit and to lay down norms for that. It is correct that it was essential for the matter to be investigated. We then voted in favour of it.

I had the honour to serve on that Select Committee. What happened on the Select Committee was the very thing that caused me to change my mind. We then had the opportunity of investigating the matter. As the matter progressed, it appeared to be more and more difficult to lay down a norm for determining what is an economic and what is an uneconomic unit. The hon. the Minister of Police was also a member of that Select Committee. What was that hon. gentleman’s attitude in 1965 when on that Select Committee we had to vote on the principle of whether a prohibition should be placed on the subdivision of agricultural land?

But he is an attorney.

That is a strange attitude to adopt. Why did he vote with us against the principle that there should be legislation to combat the subdivision of agricultural land? While the hon. the Minister of Police most certainly agreed at that time, in 1962, that there should be a Select Committee to make an investigation, why did he then cast his vote with the United Party that legislation would not be necessary? I am sure that he voted for that for one reason only. On the basis of the evidence submitted to that Select Committee, and the evidence subsequently submitted to the commission of inquiry, he had to come to one conclusion only, i.e. that it would be an impossible task to try to combat this matter by means of legislation. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Dr. Van der Merwe. He wrote an article in “Eko-nomiese Politiek van Suid Afrika”, under the editorship of Prof. J. A. Lombard. We have had to hear in this House that all the experts in South Africa agree that control over the subdivision of agricultural land is essential. Listen to what Dr. Van der Merwe says about the units of small farmers.

Is this Nak van der Merwe?

No, he cannot even remember a Sunday school text. How could he write an article? Dr. Claude van der Merwe wrote the following (translation):

It was in respect of the subdivision of land that Dr. Van der Merwe wrote these words.

But he does not say he is against it.

If the hon. member had listened carefully, he would have known that the whole argument of this side of the House has been that one can say to-day that a unit is too small and that the day after to-morrow, as a result of changed circumstances, that unit may change because the prices of products have changed or because there is a better farmer on it, one who has greater managerial ability. Then that unit will no longer be uneconomic. But in the meantime, in terms of this legislation such a good prospective farmer is prevented from farming on that land, because the hon. the Minister decided in a moment that that land was not suitable for subdivision.

You quoted Dr. Van der Merwe’s article as if he were against it.

No, I quoted it in order to prove how difficult it is to determine whether a unit will be economic or not, and how difficult it is to lay down a norm. This article was not written in 1962, when this matter was under discussion. It appeared three years ago. Dr. Van der Merwe himself envisaged that more research would have to be done in this connection.

The research has now been completed.

When was the research conducted? It was most certainly not done by the hon. member for Piketberg. This is the situation. The hon. gentlemen have not yet been able to satisfy us that they will be able to lay down a norm for determining an economic unit. As a result of the powers which the hon. the Minister will have in terms of clauses 2, 3 and 4, he will be the only man who will make this decision.

But he is a good farmer.

I know the hon. gentleman is an excellent farmer, but he as Minister will not necessarily have the knowledge to determine in every area of South frica whether a unit is economic or not. I also want to refer the hon. member to what Senator Paul Sauer said at that time. He was the then Minister of Lands and he also took part in that discussion. In referring to a piece of land in Constantia which had been subdivided, he said inter alia the following (Hansard, 2nd February, 1962, column 549):

What does this have to do with the principle?

The principle of it is the following: In earlier times the farms were much larger, but as a result of better methods and effective farming even this Coloured woman was able to have such a fantastic income on 1¼ morgen. Now the hon. the Minister says he will decide whether that land may be subdivided or not. The hon. member says it is a good thing that he should be able to make that decision, but what will the effect of this legislation be if he may do so? Over and above the fact that he will have the right to intervene in a person’s testamentary dispositions when it comes to land, the legislation will also have a further effect if the hon. the Minister uses his powers in terms of this legislation. Because the hon. the Minister will be able to prevent land in the rural areas from being subdivided, the legislation will remove the demand for land because there will be no supply. Because in many cases a man will have to rely only on his neighbour’s buying that land, the hon. the Minister will, by this action, cause an artificial drop in the price of land in our rural areas.

In the case of land around our urban areas, it will have just the opposite effect, because the hon. the Minister will have the right not so much to set certain land aside, but in terms of clause 3 to say at his discretion: “No, that is good agricultural land and therefore it may not be subdivided. But there is a piece of land under Port Jackson over there and that land may be subdivided for certain purposes other than agricultural purposes” By doing this the hon. the Minister will cause the person’s land which is under Port Jackson to be more expensive and of greater value than the person’s land which for example has vineyards on it.

Moreover, the fact that the hon. the Minister will be able to prevent subdivision from taking place will have a further effect. It will have the effect that the price of existing plots in our urban areas will rise because there will be an artificial scarcity of land again. This is what will happen. The value of the land around our cities will rocket sky high again as a result of the passing of this legislation, while it will have the opposite effect in our inland areas, such as in the Karoo and areas a few hundred miles from here. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if he implements this legislation, he will be doing a disservice to our agricultural industry. I believe it is wrong to try to push up the value of our land artificially. At the same time it would be wrong to force down the value of our land artificially. If something like this should happen. The creditworthiness of particularly the people living in areas where agricultural circumstances are difficult, would also be immediately affected. This will happen as a result of the passing of this legislation.

You are coming to the Land Bank again.

Yes, even when it comes to Land Bank loans it can change the value of his land. The hon. member for Piketberg has Land Bank loans on his brain instead of having them on the land. He should have it on the land and not on the brain. And I want to indicate another point to the hon. the Minister in connection with this legislation. When the Physical Planning Act was passed a few years ago, some people in the Transvaal …

Land prices did not drop.

Yes, I can understand that the land prices did not drop there, because it was done mainly in the areas immediately surrounding the cities.

In other words, you are talking nonsense now.

If the hon. member had listened carefully, he would have followed me when I said that the effect of this legislation would be that land rices would rise in the areas surrounding the cities.

You said they would drop in the Karoo.

I said they would drop in the Karoo because there would be a change in the demand and the supply. There is another point which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. What about the people in the Transvaal who, after the Physical Planning Act had been passed, subdivided their land with the necessary consent, but whose land was never transferred to their names? I am referring to the cases in which transfer never took place, and in which the plans and the diagrams were never submitted to the Surveyor-General.

I moved an amendment in this connection.

I know the hon. the Minister moved an amendment. In spite of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment, I just want to know whether there is adequate protection to prevent those people from having to apply all over again and having their land surveyed all over again. One can get the situation that the buyer as well as the seller who did this a year or two ago but never took the matter further, may suffer considerable losses.

I should like to make the following statement. Last Wednesday, in the Budget debate, I accused the hon. member for Port Natal of having told this House three blatant lies. My attention has been drawn to the fact that the word “lie” is unparliamentary. I therefore wish to withdraw the words “blatant lies” and to substitute the words “blatant inaccuracies”.

During the course of the speech I made in this House on Wednesday I made the following statement: “I only hope that when I do this the Ministers concerned will have the courtesy to apologize not only to me but to the association about which they have told lies.” I now realize that the word “lies” is unparliamentary and I would like to withdraw it unreservedly.

A report by the Board of Trade and Industries is being laid upon the Table to-day, a report in which certain recommendations, which I am not prepared to accept, are being made in regard to petrol. Accordingly I have deemed it desirable to make, with your leave, Sir, the following statement:

Under the provisions of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act a general prohibition on the maintenance of resale prices was announced in the country on 25th June, 1969. However, a few commodities, which, in er alia, included petrol, were exempted from the prohibition on a provisional basis in order to afford the Board of Trade and Industries the opportunity to investigate such applications for exemption from this prohibition as were received from the interested parties.

In its Report No. 1262 (M), which was tabled in this House to-day, the Board of Trade and Industries recommended that petrol should not be exempted from the general prohibition on price maintenance.

I gave careful consideration to this recommendation by the Board of Trade and Industries, but decided against implementing the recommendation for the time being. I arrived at this decision in the light of the history of the development of petrol distribution in the country, and I should now like to inform hon. members on this matter.

In the first place, I want to point out that, with the approval of the Government, price maintenance in respect of petrol was, prior to 1931 already, applied by the oil companies in conjunction with the Motor Trade Association (known as the Motor Industries Federation at present) in order to ensure the balanced development of the service station trade to the benefit of the trade itself and of the public in general,

However, this set-up was brought to an end through the passing of the Unlawful Determination of Prices Act, 1931 which under the depression conditions which prevailed at the time, sought to cause the benefits of free price competition to accrue to consumers. However, the keen rivalry in petrol sales which followed this step led to chaotic conditions in the service station trade. Numerous smaller service stations which were unable to cope with this intensified rivalry, simply had to close down, the result being that the number of distribution points were, to the inconvenience of the public, thinned out considerably. In addition, the quality of the services rendered by service stations also deteriorated all over the country.

Accordingly the Board of Trade and Industries was instructed to investigate the matter, and, on the recommendation of this board, petrol was exempted from the provisions of the Unlawful Determination of Prices Act in 1937. Subsequent to this, price maintenance was reintroduced with the approval of the Government, and the Government also introduced control over the wholesale prices of petrol. To prevent the application of price maintenance from leading to overcrowding in the service station trade control over the construction of new service stations by the so-called Petrol Advisory Committee—which was composed of representatives of the Motor Trade Association and the oil companies-— was also introduced subsequently once again with the approval of the Government.

These conditions continued until the passing of the Undue Restraint on Trade Act, 1949, which, inter alia, placed the oil companies under an obligation to make petrol available to service stations which complied with certain minimum requirements in respect of the rendering of repair services to motorists. The Act also required that the resale price of petrol be maintained. As a result of the application of the provisions of this Act the restrictions on the construction of service stations imposed by the former Petrol Advisory Committee, were lifted. Although the said Act was repealed in 1950, the relevant provisions thereof are still being applied at present under a voluntary agreement amongst the Government, the oil companies and the Motor Industries Federation with a view to ensuring that service stations are rendering a reasonable standard of service to the public.

The introduction of the single-brand marketing system of petrol in 1951 went hand in hand with the granting of financial assistance to service station owners by the oil companies. Because of the effect of these two factors the number of new service stations constructed in the country increased sharply, the result being that the petrol through-put per service station dropped considerably so that the handling of petrol became uneconomic for numerous service stations. Although cost investigations into the profitability of service stations showed at the time that the handling of petrol had become uneconomic for many service stations, the Government was of the opinion, however, that the margin allowed to filling stations was adequate for ensuring them a reasonable income, provided that they could maintain a reasonable turnover of petrol sales.

Consequently the Government had to take measures once again in order to place the service station trade on a sound basis. In 1960, therefore, the Government, in conjunction with the Motor Industries Federation and the various oil companies, put into operation the prent service station rationalization scheme. In terms of this scheme the number of service stations which may be constructed with the financial support of the oil companies during a specified number of years, is restricted by way of quota allocations to the oil companies, and certain other measures are being applied so as to ensure that the average petrol turnovers of the service stations will be increased as much as possible.

From the aforegoing it appears, therefore, that control in some form or another was necessary for many years in order to ensure the sound functioning and development of the service station trade. On the few occasions on which the development of this trade was left to the free operation of the market mechanism, this step gave rise to disruptive and un-, sound conditions in the trade. Experience has shown that conditions which are neither in the interests of the entrepreneurs in the garage trade, nor in the interests of the public, arise in this sector as soon as unrestrained rivalry is permitted in this trade.

In these circumstances I am of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the country to forbid at this stage price maintenance in the case of petrol. However, I want to add that the recommendation made by the Board of Trade and Industries will in fact be implemented if circumstances in the service station trade in future change to such an extent that I deem it expedient in the interests of the country that price maintenance in respect of petrol be brought to an end.

When die House adjourned last night I was putting a certain problem to the hon. the Minister in connection with people who had subdivided land, prior to the passing of this Act, under the Physical Planning Act of 1967. I then asked the hon. the Minister whether these people would have the necessary protection where they had not yet taken transfer of the land, and whether there would be the necessary protection for the buyer as well as the seller. I may say that after I had once more studied clause 13 properly, the new clause that we accepted, I came to the conclusion that those people were in fact properly protected. The hon. the Minister may consequently ignore that point, but I think it is the only point in my speech he can ignore.

Sir, our attitude in respect of this Bill is this: We believed that the hon. the Minister’s powers are too extreme, and also, inter alia, that this leaves the State altogether free to use good agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. We pointed out to the hon. the Minister that as a result of the Railways and national roads, for example, the State frequently divided up land into uneconomic units, as a result of the fact that those roads or lines have to be built.

How do you know it is uneconomical?

I shall show the hon. member how uneconomical it is.

But last night you did not know what an uneconomic unit was.

The hon. the Minister is taking certain powers here, but the Bill leaves certain Government Departments quite free to do as they like. I want to mention to the hon. the Minister the example of the new road that is being constructed between Knysna and Humansdorp and between Humansdorp and Port Elizabeth. There was a proper road, but I am told that as a result of the deviation and the construction of the new road there are at least 30 or 40 farms that are now being divided up to such an extent that some of the pieces lie some way from the man’s homestead. For example the road traverses cultivated fields. I know of one case where the road goes through the farmer’s only fountain, where he had 25/30 morgen under irrigation. The hon. member for Humans-dorp …

Sit still.

… and many other representatives urged the State that this kind of thing should not take place. Even the extension officers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services held consultations with the Government Department concerned, but all the representations they made to the Department concerned were altogether ignored.

That is not true.

Sir, that hon. member says it is not true, that there was no iota of deviation from the road as it was originally planned.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member will in any case only be asking a simple question and I do not feel like answering it. I can, for instance, mention the example of a farmer whose land was divided up in such a way that his barns and his homestead are on one side of the road that ran through his only fountain, with the result that his land was made altogether uneconomical. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we are not correct in our arguments about this Bill leaving the Minister and other: Government Departments free to continue with the subdivision of land, while they regard the farmer as the only scapegoat in this respect. We think that this is altogether unreasonable, because so many Government Departments make use of good agricultural land and will still be left free to continue with subdivision in the future.

To sum up, our attitude on this side of the House is this: We believe that the farmer himself is able to deal with this problem. We believe that under modern circumstances the farmer will no longer divide up his land for agricultural purposes in such a way that it will not be worthwhile for his children to farm on that land. I am convinced that the modern farmer realizes that he must bequeath the largest possible agricultural unit to his son or his heir, or the best possible agricultural unit on which that son or heir can make a living. Therefore we believe that it ought not to be the Minister’s task to handle this matter. In addition we believe that if we pay attention to the economic side of our agricultural industry, the problem will progressively diminish in the future. If the economic side receives the necessary attention, it will not be necessary for us to trouble ourselves about this matter. In the third place we believe that this legislation is unnecessary because there are already sufficient legal provisions on the Statute Book according to which the hon. the Minister and the Provincial Administrations may act, if there is then so great a danger of the subdivision of agricultural land. Lastly, it is our view that with the correct education and the proper guidance, if there are still farmers who are in need of this, they themselves will ensure that their land is not divided up into uneconomic units. [Time expired.]

Last night the hon. member for Newton Park did not know what an economic unit was, but this morning he did, in fact, know this when he referred to how roads divide up lands. While the hon. member was speaking last night it occurred to me that if a working farmer was not able to say what was economical and what was uneconomical he might just as well be classified as an uneconomic farmer, and I say this without wanting to be personal. Any working farmer ought surely to be able to say what economic and uneconomic units are in the area in which he is farming. Thus the hon. member ought to be able to tell us what are economic and uneconomic units in the vicinity where he is farming. There will, of course, be deviations when it comes to pig farmers, chicken farmers or bee farmers, for example. But in livestock regions the hon. member ought surely to be able to say what is an economic unit and what is not.

He also spoke here of the solvency of the farmer. In connection with testations I now want to point out to you that where a farmer in the Karoo, for example, owns 12,000 morgen, the original, agricultural and livestock value of which was, say, R72,000, and he wants to divide that land up among his four sons, the actual subdivision is going to be worth less. If one of those sons now wants to get out of the bottleneck he will have to sell his land to someone else at a ridiculously high figure. That is the only way he will be able to get out of that position. These are difficult things and cannot easily be disregarded. As the hon. member for Walmer rightly said, this measure is 100 years too late. In Holland this method of subdivision functions excellently. There the lands were so small that those who wanted to cultivate them did not even need to buy implements, because all the cultivation could be done by hand. However, to-day the people are making a better living: in fact, production there is the highest of all the European Common Market countries. We could do the same here in South Africa. Today the Minister is obtaining the authority, and that authority will be transferred to other people when he is no longer there— only hot to the United Party because it will never come into power again. But do restrictions not already exist in South Africa? Do we then not have urban and township complexes? Can a person to-day divide up a plot within the municipal area of Cape Town without permission? He cannot, neither can he do so in any town in the country districts. Therefore there are already restrictions. This measure is only going to align the position in the country districts with the position in the cities and towns, and it is going to do this without interfering with the farmer’s rights.

Mr. Speaker, this is a measure that should have been introduced long ago. In speaking about this measure I do so with only the greatest respect and esteem for our rural community. We know that there was over-population in our country districts, and that as far back as the thirties the soil began to retaliate and to push off some of our people. That is why this measure became necessary. We are only the treasurers of the South African soil, the temporary tenants. It is our responsibility to care for the South African soil, and if we are not prepared to do this we might just as well leave South Africa, because the soil will take its revenge on future generations. That is why we must now realize and accept our responsibilities.

The contribution of the hon. member for Aliwal was not according to his usual measure. We are used to getting from him a heavyweight contribution. To-day his contribution, however, was rather a lightweight one, there being no substance to his arguments at all. He said any practical farmer could decide what an economical unit is and what an uneconomical unit is. I grant him that. That is one of the reasons why we on this side of the House oppose this measure, a point which was so ably put by the hon. member for Newton Park this very morning. The farmer knows what is and what is not an economical unit—therefore, leave it to the farmer. Why, then, must the Minister decide? This is the crux of the argument from this side of the House. The hon. member mentioned a farm of 12,000 morgen in the Karoo. Well, it would be very nice to have a farm of 12,000 morgen in the Karoo if it rained. But if a poultry farmer was to have 12,000 morgen in the Karoo, how many chickens could he keep there? All the chickens at present produced in South Africa could be produced on that farm. Furthermore, 20 morgen or 50 acres could be enough for 10,000 chinchilla, or for a 1,000 mink, while 35 acres with water could be sufficient to earn R6.000 a year producing vegetables, especially that type of exotic vegetable which is being grown in this country to-day, vegetables for which there is a ready market. This is the crux of the matter, and that is why I say that the contribution of the hon. member for Aliwal to-day was a lightweight one; it was not up to his usual standard. [Interjections.] Yes, I will accept that it was a featherweight contribution. He went further and asked whether there were not controls in regard to the subdivision of land already. In this connection he referred to urban areas. He then said that all this measure was doing, was to bring rural areas under the same control as urban areas without affecting the rights of the farmer. But the problems of the country areas are not the same as those of urban areas; similarly, problems in urban areas do not pertain to rural areas. Would the hon. member like to see all the controls operative in an urban area be applied to country areas? The answer to this whole problem lies in what the hon. member himself has said, i.e. that there are already controls, and controls not only over the urban areas but also over the platteland as well. Farmland is already being controlled. There is no free subdivision of agricultural land to-day, as was pointed out by my friend, the hon. member for Newton Park. Let me deal with some of these controls. We have the position where subdivision of any land anywhere in the Republic is to-day controlled by somebody or other. The main control to-day rests with provincial councils.

Under 25 morgen.

No, not 25 morgen. I do not know why the hon. member keeps on throwing 25 morgen at me. He is dreaming, because any subdivision of any land must be submitted to the provincial council.

Not in the Cape Province.

The hon. member should have a look at Act No. 10 of 1944 if he is capable of understanding it. He will see that it rests with the province except for certain cases where the consent of the Minister is required. This is the point the hon. member is missing.

In the Cape Province only under 25 morgen.

It is no good, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member keeps on shouting that. Perhaps his Whips will give him an opportunity to stand up and state his case so that we could get to know what is motivating his mind. I notice that even his Minister is telling him to keep quiet about this matter. All subdivisions, as I have said, are controlled by one or other body to-day. I put this very pertinently to the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading debate. I asked him what the case would be if a developer—be he a farmer, a speculator or anybody else—applies through the townships board, in Natal for instance, and has obtained the consent of the relevant Government departments where it is necessary. When this has been done, what is going to be the position? The hon. the Deputy Minister replied to me then by saying that he had nothing to do with speculators. I asked him to try to rectify this position in the Committee Stage. He did introduce an amendment which is printed on page 180 of the Minutes. Although I welcome this amendment, it only goes half-way; it does not solve the problem, particularly not in so far as my people in Natal are concerned. But it does solve a number of other cases and because of that I welcome it. The amendment is for the insertion of a new clause 13 reading as follows—

It talks about a permit to be issued under section 8 (1) (a) (ii) or (iii) of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. The relevant provision of that Act provides that the Minister in his discretion may direct that a permit to be signed by an officer designated thereto by him may be issued subject to such conditions as he may determine authorizing the subdivision of land “in a controlled area” or the acquisition of an undivided share in land “in a controlled area”. This is the nub—not the whole of the country has been declared a controlled area—virtually nothing in Natal has been declared a controlled area. I am glad the hon. Minister of Planning is in his seat. He can confirm that this is so. We are, therefore, going to be faced in Natal with a situation where people and enterprises have complied with all the requirements of the various laws with which they have to comply, they have obtained all the necessary consents, having established need and desirability and are in the process of preparing diagrams for submission to the Surveyor-General and now they are going to lose the benefit of everything they have done. In fact, certain of those properties have already been sold and have already been developed by the purchaser. No provision is made for them in clause 2 of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill we are discussing now is the exemptions clause which provides that under certain circumstances the Minister shall not exercise the powers he takes in this Bill. But there is no provision for them in this clause.

I know that the hon. member for Potchefstroom understands my problem. I accept his explanation that his provision takes care of it but it does not take care of my problem.

In the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister gave an assurance in connection with your problem.

I am very glad to hear that as unfortunately I was not here during the Committee Stage. I am very glad to hear that the Minister did give this assurance but I want to put my problem in another way. I accept the bona fides of the hon. the Deputy Minister that he will grant a permit if somebody does put such a case to him. But should this not be written into the Bill? Is there any real reason why it should not be written into this legislation, at least to allay the fears and suspicions of certain people. We do not know how long this Deputy Minister is going to be the person in charge of this legislation. I do not think that any of his successors will be bound by any statement which he has made. They would be bound if it was written into the Bill. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister again whether he will not consider some such further amendments to this Bill which can be introduced in the Other Place at least to tie up these loose ends so that there will be no discrimination against certain developers and enterprises who have so far acted in good faith and have in certain cases spent large sums of money. The point I want to make is that this is especially important where need and desirability have been established in terms of the existing legislation.

This brings me to another point which is another reason why I am opposed to this legislation. We have the situation where an individual, the hon. the Minister, who is orientated in one field, is now going to decide on the many spheres of the subdivision of land. We have here a person who is interested in the agricultural industry in South Africa, who is interested in looking after farmers and considers this his primary task. He is now going to decide whether a township or a city might expand and whether a certain piece of land should be released for industrial development.

Only as far as agricultural land is concerned.

I want to say with respect to the hon. member for Potchefstroom that in terms of the definition of “agricultural land” it is all land situated outside the area of jurisdiction of a local authority. Local authorities can only expand in one way and that is into agricultural land. If any more industrial land is to be zoned in South Africa, it must be what will be agricultural land in terms of this Bill that must be converted into industrial land. That is all taken under the control of this hon. Deputy Minister. He is going to control all this.

We were opposed to certain sections of the Physical Planning Act, but we do feel that at least the Department of Planning has a broader base and a broader outlook with which it can approach the subdivision of land. They will consider the interests of all parties. I am not saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not do so, but he will naturally look at it with a jaundiced eye, looking at it from the point of view of the agriculturist every time. I do not think that this sort of responsibility should be placed in the hands of one man who is orientated in that way.

But that is the whole idea.

I know that it is the whole idea, but this is the idea that we oppose. I know that the hon. member for Potchefstroom and I cannot agree on this particular point. We might agree on the other point that was made but we cannot agree on this point.

He is a “prokureur”.

While talking about “prokureurs” I am afraid that I was rather shocked at an interjection which was made here last night and again this morning.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss now what happened here last night.

Mr. Speaker, this arose again this morning as the result of an interjection that was made.

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we will let it rest.

There is the other aspect that in terms of clause 2 the State is exempted when it comes to purchasing or subdividing any agricultural land. The hon. member for Newton Park put a very strong case in regard to this matter. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister really has a reply to it. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister very pertinently whether he is going to protect the farmers against the State. He does not have the power to veto any such subdivision. That is specifically excluded. He exempts the State. He does not have the power when it comes to the State. I wonder whether he is going to use his influence and try to persuade them not to do it. I refer specifically to a case I mentioned earlier, namely the case of the farmers in the Estcourt district in the constituency of Klip River who opposed the take-over of certain land by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. They said that they were opposed to the Govemment’s taking over more land and this watershed area which they considered to bevaluable agricultural land. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister who is agriculture-orientated oppose the hon. the Minister of Bantu Ad-ministration and Development in his plan? Will he assist the farmers who in this case want and need assistance? Will he assist them in their fight against the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to tryto retain this land for sound agricultural use, namely for the production of food? I think that this is another point which the hon. the Deputy Minister must consider very deeply.

I now come to my final point. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Vryheid has left the Ohamber. When he was speaking yesterday, he asked the Government to apply more stringent controls over Prvincial Councils. He implied that the Provincial Councils were not doing their job properly.

Only in Natal because the United Party is in power there.

The hon member has fallen in the trap. He says that it only applies to Natal because there is a United Party administration there. I want to say that the United Party administration in Natal is the only one which has carried out the provisions of the law in this regard.

Which law?

I refer to Act No. 10 of 1944. I would agree with the hon. member for Vryheid that if it is necessary to control the other three provinces, let the Deputy Minister pass this Bill and apply it to the other provinces, but not to Natal. It is not necessary to apply it there.

The last aspect of this Bill I wish to discuss is that we have here once again a whittling away of the powers of the Provincial Councils. We have here a further emasculation of the provinces. These councils are now being left with virtually nothing to do except to act as rubber stamps for this Government. They no longer even have the power to control the further development of local authorities. Up to now we have had the position that if a local authority wishes to expand it applies to the Administrator and by proclamation certain other areas are incorporated. Those areas are going to be agricultural land. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the present provisions relating to incorporation in terms of a provincial ordinance will still pertain, or will his permission be required before certain areas can be incorporated into the areas of the local authorities, as happens today.

I think I have made it quite clear that I am opposed to this measure and I will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, the arguments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) and the hon. member for Newton Park were, inter alia, that this legislation is unnecessary and that the farmers themselves must be allowed to control the subdivision of agricultural land. If, however, the farmers were so inclined they would not continually be asking at congresses that this injudicious subdivision of land be controlled by way of legislation. The injudicious subdivision of land is still taking place as a result of circumstances beyond the control of our farmers. I believe that there are, in fact, farmers who are responsible enough to prevent any further cutting up from taking place. That side of the House therefore has no argument, because the farmers themselves support this measure. They asked for it.

The other argument of that side of the House is that there is, in fact, control over the subdivision of land in South Africa. What is this legislation then providing for? With this legislation the control over the subdivision of agricultural land will be placed in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, where it belongs. My colleagues inform me that in the Cape Province, under existing legislation, there is only control over 25 morgen and less. What is 25 morgen in an area such as the Karoo? The general impression the United Party wanted to create in this discussion was that this legislation would altogether prohibit the subdivision of land. But surely this is not the case? All that this legislation is providing is that there shall be proper control over the subdivision of agricultural land. In this legislation provision is not even being made for injudicious division that took place in the past. If someone consolidated land that had been cut up, and now owns a property of 300 morgen, for example, with nine or ten title deeds, he could deal with that as he saw fit. This legislation has no control over that. Under this legislation there will only be control over the further cutting up of land in the future.

The third argument of the United Party is that we do not have proper criteria according to which the Minister may grant or refuse permission for the subdivision of land. Then they refer to the question of what an economic unit is. We may argue until the cows come home and we shall still not have a solution for this problem. The hon. the Deputy Minister said very clearly in his Second-Reading speech that the question of an economic unit would be determined according to the existing farming pattern in a particular vicinity. It is no argument to say that on a morgen or two a person could make a success of farming with chickens or with flowers. These instances are by far in the minority. Because this is so we cannot now say that it must be applied as a criterion. The determination of an economic unit in the agricultural industry is not something new; it is used for example as a criterion in agricultural financing. Before the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and the Land Bank can engage in financing, they first determine what the viability of a particular unit is. In such cases they make use of the Land Bank valuator and of the advice of the local credit committees. After all, the hon. the Minister may also, in the implementation of this Act, make use of the advice of the local bodies about what the nor-mal farming pattern and position is in respect of a unit in a particular area. The hon. member for East London (City) said that weshould first carry out ecological surveys. Let us suppose that we now carry out an intensive survey in this connection …

That would be a very good thing.

Yes, it would be a good thing, but would it support the United Party’s argument to the effect that we would then be able to determine an economic unit? In the determination of an economic unit there are many other factors that must be taken into consideration. Let us take, as an example, a farm of 200 morgen in the area from which I come. The ratio of land to grazing may, for example, be such that there is little cultivated land but a great deal of grazing land. If this farm is divided up into two units of 100 morgen each, this would constitute, according to the normal pattern of farming, two uneconomic units. It is in such cases that the Minister must exercise control. Here we are dealing with a case of sound judgment. And surely someone somewhere must have the final say about this situation. That someone is none other than the hon. the Minister, after consultation with bodies that are familiar with local farming conditions.

Another argument of that side of the House is that this controlling measure will interfere with the rights of the individual. But if the rights of the individual are a danger to South Africa’s most important asset, i.e. our agricultural land, it is surely the function of the State to curtail that right, thereby protecting our national asset against injudicious manipulation. This same principle is contained in the Soil Conservation Act. Where does one have greater interference in the rights of the individual than in the Soil Conservation Act? One can take a man by the scruff of his neck and tell him that he must plan his farm and do certain work. This same principle is contained in this legislation. We are working here with agricultural land. This is a very important national asset. In the past, report after report showed how certain individuals handled this important asset.

I want to allege that this legislation will also give support to the execution of our soil conservation endeavour in South Africa. I have years of experience in soil conservation. I frequently came to properties where, practically, it was impossible to plan, and where there are no possibility of benefits under the Soil Conservation Act, because the unit is altogether too small. It is uneconomical for the farmer on that small unit to apply soil conservation works there, even with the aid of the subsidy scheme. This places one in a difficult position. I should like to quote what the interim Marais Report stated in this connection. It reads as follows (translation) —

Then the report continues by referring to the Verbeek Committee. It states that the Verbeek Committee evidenced its serious concern about the situation in paragraph 103 of its report. Which reads as follows (translation) —

Yes, unsound farming systems.

That is why the farmers of South Africa support this measure, because they are fully aware of the circumstances in which farmers make injudicious use of their land. But it is not necessarily only farmers that are guilty of this; there are also other speculative elements that abuse this situation. And now the United Party comes along and opposes this measure. But there are surely other elements that are beyond the control of farmers. Take the argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). He said that the Minister even had control over the expansion of township areas and that he could delay expansion. But if my farm borders on a township, for example, and were to be declared in integral part of the township area, it is immediately excluded under this Act.

Forgive him, for he does not know what he is saying.

Even if it were to happen, the Minister no longer has any control over that, and it cannot delay expansion by local authorities.

But what is the purpose then?

The purpose is to be able to control the subdivision of agricultural land on agricultural principles. That is the purpose of this legislation. Strangely enough, the United Party accepts the principle, but they oppose the Bill that must control this injudicious subdivision.

I want to conclude by saying that it is a good Act, that our farmers accept it and that we are very grateful that this Act eventually came before this House. After many years of investigation, after commission upon commission, we eventually come along after decades and place such an Act before the House. And the United Party still opposes it!

The hon. member for Bethal has now raised a point which we would like the hon the Minister to clear up, because the Minister now in terms of this legislation has power to forbid the subdivision of any agricultural land. Agricultural land is de fined very carefully in clause I and the other definitions define other areas which are not agricultural land. Clause 3 says that agricultural land shall not be subdivided without the consent of the Minister. Now will the Minister explain to us where in this Bill is the extension of local authority areas exempted from the permission of the hon. the Minister? The local authority is defined and it is exempted. Every single existing local authority in its present boundaries is defined and exempted. [Interjection.] If I understood as little as the hon. member for Graaff-Reimet I would never open my mouth in this House. The whole thing here is under the control of the Minister and there is nothing here which says there may be extensions of the present boundaries of existing local authority areas without the consent of the Minister. Let me put this question to the hon. the Minister. Supposing there are two areas. Let us take, for instance, the City of Pietermaritzburg. They can expand towards Ashburton, land which is reasonably suited to agriculture, or they can expand towards Sweet Waters which is difficult ground, and an application is made to incorporate certain areas. What is the recommendation of the Minister going to be? Because I can tell him now this is the sort of question which will come before his Department and it is going to be in the hands of this Minister to decide what sort of ground is going to be made available, whether it is ground which is easy to control or difficult to control, and whether it is going to be ground which is easy to build on or difficult to build on.

Quite right. That is what his responsibility will be.

I am glad that hon. member agrees, because he is an attorney and we can expect in terms of what the hon. the Deputy Minister said the other night, that they will vote for us together with the Minister of Police, on this issue against the Bill. [Interjection.] This was the reason advanced for the hon. the Minister of Police supporting our point of view. What has happened is that total control of the subdivision of ground has now passed into the hands of the Minister as the only way that can be found by the Government to combat what is admitted by everybody in this House to be the economic problem of farming. Total control has now passed into the hands of this Minister, and the only means that can be found to deal with the economic problem of the farmer in this instance is to control ground so that it will not be subdivided below a certain acreage. I want to know this from the hon. the Minister. Everyone who now wishes to subdivide ground has to satisfy the Minister and his Department that the holding to which they wish to subdivide will be economic. To what extent is that going to be followed through? Is it just the first sale? If I sell a piece of ground to somebody who can satisfy the Minister that it will be economic and supposing that man fails on the ground, what is going to be the position of the next purchaser who comes along? Once it is classed as economic, will that now be a total classification for all time?

Farmers differ, you know!

The hon. member says “boere verskil”. That is precisely the point I am making, that you might find one person who may be a successful farmer on a subdivision. He may die and somebody may buy it and not be able to make a living on it. What is the definition of what is economic? Is it a holding on which a farmer can make a reasonable living?

Ask Myburgh. He knows.

Is it a holding on which a farmer can make a reasonable living? Is proof that it is not economic the fact that a farmer will go broke farming that subdivision? Will the Minister and his Department accept that if a farmer fails on it economically, that holding has now to be classed as uneconomic, and how many times has this got to be passed on to a new owner before it is accepted by the Department that it is uneconomic? (Interjection.] This hon. member for Vryheid referred earlier to the Provincial Council of Natal. What has come out of this debate is that the Provincial Council of Natal, which has a “goeie Sap-regering”, is miles ahead of the other provinces in South Africa in every respect, and particularly in regard to the control of agricultural ground, because in our province we took powers last year to control the subdivision of ground beyond the 50 acres or the 25 morgen that the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet referred to.

He said it was not so.

He never said it was not so. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet said that in the Cape Province that was the only condition which was applied. In Natal— and I mentioned this to the Deputy Minister during the Committee Stage—if you wish tosubdivide ground even beyond the 50-acre limit, you have to satisfy the Private Town-ships Board that this can be classified as an economic holding. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should be able to write into his Bill the definition which was accepted by the Private Townships Board, because if to-day you want to subdivide ground in Natal, before it can be submitted to the Surveyor-General of Natal, you must have an exemption certificate from the Private Townships Board. If we can do that in Natal, why can the Deputy Minister and his Department not do it? What is there now that the Department cannot do that the Provincial Council of Natal, acting in terms of its normal powers given to it by the Acts mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), can do? The Provincial Council of Natal can set down qualifications to which there has been no abjection from the public at large. I want to pay a tribute to Mr. Percy Fowle, the M.E.C. in Natal. He had the vision to see what was coming, because in Natal there are at present something like 11 applications for subdivisions for what are called chalet schemes.

Why did they ask for this legislation?

There is to-day already a chalet scheme in operation on the South Coast run by a firm called Koornhof Investments. There are others already to-day in Natal, where undivided shares have been sold, and the intention is to take a farm which is fairly close to me, 2,000 acres of ground, and to sell 50 lots of shares. The Natal Provincial Council saw this coming and took the powers at that stage, over a year ago, to make sure that there was some provision in law which could control this. I leave it to hon. members themselves to understand. What is happening is that a farm can be bought up and shares can be sold up to a limit of 50 people, because that is the limit of a private company. Those shares will give a residential right, and the shares are transferable; they can be sold. To think that a farm on that basis will continue to produce as an agricultural unit is of course nonsensical. These are the problems which will come to the Minister and his Department. We are now in the third reading of this debate and I think that when the hon. the Minister replies it is incumbent on him to tell us how he is going to deal with problems like this. In my own constituency, in the area of Underberg which I have mentioned, we have had an application to erect 200 chalets on a farm and the farming community understandably are upset about it. But I want to know whether the Minister is now taking the power to control the undivided shares. Because if these things have gone so far that he cannot interfere, the law as it existed then has actually been by-passed quite legally; they have sailed round the provisions of the law.

The hon. member for Newton Park mentioned the question of road subdivision. The province of Natal accepted that if a road cuts off an area of ground which is less than 10 acres in extent, that is uneconomic and they will buy and dispose of it. But it has happened time and again that a road is cut through a farm and an area of 50 or 60 acres has been cut off, particularly, by the national road, and left lying. There is virtually no access to it. I think the Minister must now tell us what the policy of his Department is going to be in relation to ground of that nature, because he has now exempted the Roads Department, the Railways, any local authority and anybody else acting on behalf of the State who wishes to pass through a farmer’s ground. They do not have to come to the Minister; they can simply go where they like without having regard to good agricultural land or indifferent agricultural land. It has happened time and again that a group of fanners has met with one of these authorities where there have been two alternative routes. There might be R50,000 or R100,000 involved in the difference between the one route and the other, but the route has been taken through the good agricultural land because that is the land on which it was easiest to build the road or the railway.

They all hate the farmers. (Hulle is 'n klomp boerehaters.)

Ben Schoeman does what he likes with them.

Yes, he tramples upon all of them. I think the hon. the Minister must realize that he is now taking upon himself the right to control, but he has exempted one of the principal villains in the piece and that is the authorities who are connected with the construction of routes through farming country here in South Africa.

Sir, I am sorry that the hon. member for Aliwal is not here. I wanted to make mention of something which I read and which the hon. member was reported to have said when he opened the show at Kokstad—and then he pretends to be a practising or a practical farmer. He said that what farmers in this country have to do is to import white labour from Europe to run their farms so that we can get rid of the Bantu labour that we have. Sir, I will take it up with the hon. member when I see him and ask him whether this is correct. He was here a minute or so ago; I am sorry he is not here now. I was going to refer to something else that he said as a practical farmer and I wanted to know whether this is the standard of practical farming knowledge that this hon. member has.

Sir, the other point I want to make is this: The hon. the Minister or his Department is going to be inundated with requests to subdivide because every single subdivision of ground now has to come before his Department, and every request is going to have to be referred to somebody—to a committee or to an extension officer. I believe that this is going to place an intolerable strain on the forces which are to-day organized for the propagation of the matter which is so close to the heart of the hon. member for Bethal, namely the conservation of the soil of our country. Already, as I mentioned earlier, we have a shortage of extension officers, and it is a crying shortage, a shortage which is so bad that in my constituency a farming association bought a house with their own money simply so that they could have housing for an extension officer. The Department was not able to supply an extension officer. Primarily this duty is going to devolve upon the extension officer and those people who are helping him, the leading farmers in the district. We saw the other day in the Press that a leader farmer programme has been instituted. This again is in Natal, Mr. Speaker; I do not know whether the other provinces have caught up yet, but certainly in Natal we are bringing together the people who are called the leader farmers, the people who will educate farmers and help the extension officer propagate soil conservation and who will lead by practical example and demonstration and by visiting people’s farms and showing them how soil conservation can be carried out. But, Sir, these people are now going to be diverted from that task, which, as the hon. member will agree, is their most important task.

This Bill deals only with subdivision.

I agree, Sir, and I have said so. If the hon. the Minister had been here when I started speaking he would have known what I was talking about. Sir, this is the problem. Whenever a subdivision is going to be considered now—and there are innumerable subdivisions …

This is done in the Transvaal already and in most parts of the Cape Province.

Sir, you are merely loading upon the people who are concerned with the conservation of your ground an additional burden and it is not a burden which is going to get easier. I agree with the hon. member for Bethal; this question of soil conservation is a very important matter, and what the hon. the Minister is doing now, I believe, is that he is taking a step which is going to be detrimental to the soil conservation effort. He is loading upon those very people an additional burden.

Sir, to return to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the question of zoning, we have periurban areas and municipalities which are going to want to expand. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Department now have a very clear duty, which is to zone South Africa and its agricultural areas for various purposes which might be residential, which might be recreational, or which might be something not only of an agricultural nature but something other than an agricultural nature. I make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider what I have said here about the recreational use of farm land, because it is not enough simply to say that these areas are agricultural and that they may not be subdivided, because quite honestly and obviously the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Department is to maintain the size of subdivisions at a high level. This is the only effect that this legislation can have; in other words the size of agricultural holdings will not be allowed to get smaller, but that wherever it is possible to consolidate, they will get larger and larger. That must be the only effect that this legislation must have and that is the only work that the Minister’s Department can do with this Bill.

You are talking silly nonsense.

Sir, the purpose of this Bill is to prevent the subdivision of ground. Let me explain to the hon. the Minister that when you subdivide ground you cut it into smaller pieces.

Subdivision when the land becomes too small to be a viable unit.

Sir, the hon. the Minister is merely helping me in what I said. The idea of this must be to prevent subdivision into smaller and smaller units; in other words, it must be to push up the limit below which ground cannot be subdivided. Am I talking nonsense now?

Of course you are.

There must be a limit of some sort in the minds of the people in every single area throughout the length and breadth of South Africa below which subdivision will not be allowed.

Do you imagine for a single moment that if somebody wants to provide recreational facilities on his farm we will not allow that?

Sir, the hon. the Minister has not been here throughout the whole debate, so let me address my remarks to the hon. the Deputy Minister who has been here throughout the debate and who knows what I have been saying. The Minister was not here when I was speaking earlier on: he does not know what I was talking about and I have no time to attempt to explain it to him.

Just ignore him.

The plea that I am making is that consideration should be given by the Department to the question of the recreational use of ground and that they should be zoned so that people will know what the position is and will be given a pattern of development. a direction of development, for recreational areas in the country. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister would be very well advised if he would direct the attention of his Department to the advisability of setting aside certain areas, on application, for recreational use. We accept that there shall be an application and we accept that the Minister has the power to control it. but the Minister himself should make available certain areas for re-creational purposes where subdivision may be allowed at the Minister’s discretion for that specific purpose. Because, Sir, I believe that there is a danger that the idea will now take root in the minds of the public that there can be no subdivision below a certain area of ground. I feel that this is a point which is of very great importance indeed in the communal life of the people of South Africa and which to my mind goes beyond the question of merely agricultural ground.

When one dwells for a moment on the Third Reading of this Bill and one envisages what the influence of this legislation is going to be on the country as a whole, then it is probably only human to think what influence this will have on the people who were directly responsible for sending you here. Sir, I represent a constituency where this legislation will in due course have considerable influence, and I can only think that it will have a favourable influence, for I have many farmer who are on unproductive units. They are not necessarily units which are too small, but many of them have been exhausted owing to over-production and they offer no attractive possibilities. In present-day industrial and economic language, I want to say that they have no potential. When I go about among these farmers—-and I like doing so for among those very poor people we have the best and most pleasant human material one can find— and I see how they are tilling the soil in the sweat of their brow and I see how meagre and how rare the compensation for their labour is because they are restricted to such an extent then I think that they probably deserve much better than these conditions which we have allowed to develop, in which they are ensnared to-day. When I see what they are receiving in the form of subsidies, family allowances and maintenance allowances, then I want to say that I do not begrudge it them in the least. There are many cases where I wished they could receive more and that I could be of assistance in obtaining more for them, particularly where we have large families where children still have to go through school. This costs the parents a great deal and they would like to find the necessary means out of that farming unit, to send the children to high school.

I want to say that I am overjoyed that they are receiving this assistance, but what I would be even more overjoyed to see them receiving, are better prospects, and it is in this respect that I think this Bill will serve as a spiritual infusion for our farmers in the rural areas. It creates better prospects, not only better prospects for those farming on units which are uneconomic at present, but also for our young farmers who perhaps intend remaining in the rural areas, but who are now weighing the pros and cons as to whether they should not rather enter another field. If we can offer them the prospect that the conditions we are going to create in the rural areas, in the country areas, are going to constitute improved prospects for them, then I think we will be able to keep a considerable number of them on the farms who would otherwise perhaps have thought that they should rather enter the industrial and the economic spheres.

I think that when the history of our agricultural economy is subsequently written, we will describe the period we are now entering under the protection of this Bill as the period of consolidation. Sir, we realize that it will take up a good deal of time to bring about proper consolidation. There are many factors which will play a part in this, i.e. whether smaller economic units are available to consolidate with larger units—one which has perhaps gone vacant because the people have left the farms for the city or because there is no child to succeed. But as we are now entering this period of consolidation, this Act affords us the great advantage that while we are cleaning up and setting straight the backlog of what has gone wrong over such a long period, we are preventing the same process from continuing in future. When this measure is being effectively applied in practice, we will have the situation that we are bringing the two ends closer to each other and that we will then in due course be able to have our rural areas divided up into economic units. The term “economic unit” has become ingrained, but I think it would be better if we were to speak of family units because there is so much more feeling in this term than in the term “economic units”, which is so purely materialistic.

If one listens to the arguments advanced by hon. members of the United Party to the effect that this problem will solve itself, then one is surprised that a group of people who profess to be on an intellectual plane could have such an approach to this problem. Suppose there was a farmer who had 3.000 morgen, which comprised a lovely economic unit, and that he only had three children. I am not even talking about the speculative element now; I am talking solely about the agricultural element. That farmer can subdivide these 3.0 morgen into units of 1,000 morgen each which will still be economic units. But, Sir, if those children also have three children each and if you were to continue with the process which hon. members on the opposite side are advocating, if I understand them correctly, then one will subsequently have farms of 333 morgen, and so you can continue with an arithmetical subdivision. If one wants to approach the problem from a practical angle, then one must arrive at a point, apart from the speculative element, where you will also have to say to the agriculturist that the cannot make any further subdivisions. After all, we know about farms of 2,000 morgen where in bygone days there were ten children and where each of them received 200 morgen or less. We believe that when the measures of this Act are being effectively applied, it can form the basis of a sound economy in our rural areas, and we look forward to its implementation.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred a number of times to the desirability of consolidation. I, too, emphasized this point in my speech; so the hon. member and I are at peace as far as this is concerned. But the trouble with this measure is that it is trying to deal with subdivision of agricultural land, subdivisions which took place many years ago. The hon. member for Bethal will agree with me to a certain extent if I say that we are now living in an era where the farmers in South Africa are in a position to judge for themselves whether or not it is wise to subdivide any further the properties on which they now farm. In fact, I do not think it is taking place and that is one of the reasons why we think this legislation is not necessary. But if the hon. the Minister wants to put this legislation on the Statute Book, he shall have to grant many, many exemptions from the application of his norm, a norm which in itself is going to be very difficult to establish.

Let me say a word or two about Natal, sitting as I do between my hon. two colleagues who spoke about Natal. Natal is liberally endowed with farming potential. As a matter of fact, sometimes one looks upon it with envy, especially we from the Karoo suffering as we do from the drought. Here is a picture in the Farmer’s Weekly showing a gentleman busy catching trout in a stream in one of Natal’s numerous rivers. In the accompanying article it says that certain farmers are cashing in on trout fishing, the king of sport. Wealthy businessmen are leasing trout streams and even buying farms through which trout streams run. The point about a farmer having a trout stream running through the middle of his farm is that that farmer, and others like him, are in fact conserving those streams so that they can sell off sections of the river to wealthy city businessmen who can come there for a holiday and catch trout. This type of subdivision is actually in the country’s interest because the streams are being conserved. This, then will be one of the exemptions the Minister shall have to deal with. I can imagine that if this Bill is to become law there shall have to be hundreds of exemptions. In actual fact, I think it is asking too much of a Minister to decide on these exemptions.

The hon. member for Aliwal stated that a practical farmer ought to be in a position to decide whether a particular piece of land is economic or not. Well, here lies the whole problem. I am a practical farmer and yet I will have the greatest difficulty to-day to decide what particular extent a unit is or is not an economic unit. At this moment I may be able to say that I think so many thousand of morgen will constitute an economic unit. But I have no idea of what lies in the future. For instance, if rainfall continues decreasing, what is economic to-day may only be half economic in 10 years’ time. I have no idea what wool prices in future will be. So, as a practical farmer I am not even in a position to attempt to say what after a period of time will be an economic unit in the Graaff-Reinet district. The Minister of Agriculture earlier on in the debate on this measure asked the hon. member for East London (City) whether he thought 200 morgen in the Middelburg (Cape) district was an economic proposition. I do not know what the object of the Minister’s question was and what he was trying to determine. Whether it was a catch question I do not know. But let the Minister tell me whether he thinks that 3,000 morgen in the Middelburg (Cape) district is an economic proposition. Well, if the hon. the Minister does not answer me, I presume it is impossible to say.

If you have one unit of 6,000 morgen and you want to divide it into two portions of 3,000 morgen we shall allow it.

Well, if the price of wool drops by a further 30 per cent will that be the Minister’s answer also in 10 years’ time? Or will there then be a different norm? Similarly, if the price of meat varies it will affect the price of land in the Middelburg district. One of the problems we have with this legislation is that variations in the economic situation make it impossible for the Minister to lay down any norm within the realm of reasonability to enable him to carry out this legislation. But apart from controls under the Physical Planning Act, we also believe that if the Soil Conservation Act is properly applied, as the hon. member for Bethal quite properly pointed out …

How can you apply the Soil Conservation Act to very small uneconomic units?

We are talking now about the big areas in the Karoo for instance.

Ah, that is one of your problems.

We believe that if an area is declared a controlled area in terms of the Physical Planning Act, there is sufficient provisions in that Act to deal with it. I now want to refer to the farming areas which the hon. member for Bethal talked about. I believe the Soil Conservation Act gives the Minister the power, as the hon. member for Bethal said, “om ’n man by die keel te vat” and enforce any regulations in terms of that Act. I believe that if there are two laws which should not be transgressed in this country those are traffic laws and laws imposed by Parliament to control the future destiny of our soil.

With the powers the Minister already has, he can control this situation about which he is now so worried. He can issue directives which are applicable to every farming unit right throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, and under those directives he can prescribe conditions and farming practices to make it impossible for any individual to farm on a piece of property which the Minister thinks is uneconomic. Then there still is the question of education and the use of extension officers. As a matter of fact, the farming community themselves are becoming aware of these problems. Unlike 50 or 100 years ago, the farmer of to-day has the opportunity for a far better education. I can say with all justification that our extension services are placing the farmer of to-day in a better position to understand and follow better farming practices. A farmer need no longer be curtailed by legislation of this nature because his own good sense will dictate to him what he ought to do. The hon. member for Aliwal said that I had said that this Bill came 100 years too late. Because it is 100 years too late does not mean that I regard this legislation as good legislation. What I meant was that if this law was passed then, at a time when subdivision was taking place, there would have been some sense to it. But today, what the Minister is so worried about has already taken place. What should now receive the attention of the Government is consolidation, as pointed out by the hon. member for Mossel Bay.

Having listened to sneakers on this side of the House, I think they have put up an irrefutable case to show that this legislation is not necessary and hence I too shall oppose it.

The previous hon. speaker said that we should educate our farmers and the public to oppose subdivision. Are we also going to educate the speculator to stop his speculation in land?

He is controlled by the Soil Conservation Act.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate on this measure the veld has already been heavily grazed. That is why I only want to make a few remarks. This measure gives effect to a deep-felt need in our agricultural legislation, a need which has during the past few decades of disastrous droughts become increasingly urgent. I support this legislation because I have had experience of the painful consequences of fragmented and small uneconomical units in my district. There are farms 2,000 morgen in extent there on which a person owns an undivided 96th share, and then there are farms of which parts 100 yards wide by five miles long have been measured off. The negative attitude of the Opposition s incomprehensible to me in view of the background of the position as it already exists and as it is continuing to develop. There is the disturbing increase in subdivisions by scrupulous speculators merely for the sake of gain. Then there is the irrepairable erosion which is being caused by excessive demands being made on arable topsoil by the owner and the neglect by owners who do not live on the land.

The painful frustration among farmers who are trying to farm on such units is surely well known. Something must be done about the situation; a stop must be put to it. Only a party that has entirely lost its sense of reality can oppose a measure such as this for days on end and repeat one argument after another. The horse’s back has been ridden so hollow now it will break if they go on doing this. They say the Act is too drastic, that it affects the proprietary rights and the rights of disposition of the farmers, and grants the Minister too many powers. They say that we will not be able to succeed in defining economic units. Well, we admit that the Act is drastic. The Bill grants the Minister exceptional powers.

The provisions in regard to production units are difficult. All this is admitted, because it is true. But the fact that it is true, does not remove the responsibility the Government and the people of South Africa have in respect of the protection and the conservation of our greatest single asset, i.e. our land and our soil. Without powers and without restrictions it will never be possible to remedy a situation which has already assumed such alarming proportions.

The Government and the Minister realize the full consequences and the implications of the powers which he is taking and of the rights he is affecting through restrictions. That is why the provisions have been drawn up in such a way that they should prove reassuring to everybody who feels concerned about it, and in particular the Opposition. We find on the title page the first reassuring formula. It is stated thus: “Bill to control the subdivision of agricultural land.” For me the emphasis lies on the word “control”. Primarily it is to effect orderly control of subdivision. Control is inherent in most legislation in every well-ordered political economy. Prescriptions and restrictions are inseparable from good administration. We cannot get away from that. Control with this good intention should have been applied a long time ago in order to prevent further fragmentation of priceless agricultural land. Within the ambit of control we then read about the sensible exceptions which the hon. the Minister has made in respect of testamentary dispositions which have already been made, contracts which have already been drawn up, also those in respect of properties which have already been surveyed and of which the measurements have already been submitted to the Surveyor-General. Without such practical and sensible accommodations we would also have felt uneasy and concerned. The orderly and controlled application of the legislation is further stipulated by the powers which are being en trusted to the Minister and which are being opposed by the Opposition. I put it in this way that any Minister of a National Party Government, particularly the present Minister of Agriculture, will use his authority in a patriarchal way and will not apply his powers in the same way as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. In subsections (2) and (4) of section 4, the powers are clearly set out, it is clear that it is nevertheless possible to exercise discretion. The Government accepts the fact that numerous delicate positions may arise, but will certainly investigate each case on its merits and then give its findings. I think, and take it, that the Government will always give the farmer the benefit of the doubt. Traditionally our people are fond of and are tied to the soil. They are orientated to farming life, and yearn for the rural areas. It is sometimes pathetic to observe that yearning. This applies particularly to the efforts made by persons who have moved from the rural areas to the towns to acquire a little farm or a piece of land in the rural areas again. This is a good thing, this is fine, because it reveals the heart and soul of the true patriot. Love must however be positive and protective, such as the fine relationship between a parent and a child. A child may not be smothered by the excessive love of the parent. Injudiciously applied love of the soil can be as fatal to the land as the excessive love of a thoughtless parent for his child. It can destroy and smother him. It can, through pure thoughtlessness, spoil his entire future.

The Government and its officials definitely have to take this deeply-rooted love of farming of our people into account and must never apply the Act in a high-handed manner, or too literally. This Bill will, in my opinion, simply introduce and set in motion a process to remedy what went wrong in the past and which is now spreading in an alarming and destructive manner and is reaching proportions which will soon make it physically irremediable.

I want to conclude by saying that basically the intention of this Bill is not to bring about or promote the depopulation of the rural areas, but is in fact the opposite, which is to ensure that every practicing farmer Will own and retain a unit on which an economic subsistence can in future be made. The purpose of the Act is to enable him to dispose of to the next owner or to bequeath in a legacy to his child or heir a productive unit on which an economic subsistence can in figure be made. That is the purpose of the Bill. It is not a process of depopulation which is being set in motion, but is in fact a process to retain those who have to make a living from the farm and from the land. The intention is to retain all those who are able to produce and are able to do so in such a way that they will not soon be frustrated producers because they were trying to get out of a small piece of land something it was not possible to get. The intention is clear, i.e. to prevent farms from being further fragmented and erosion which takes place as a result of this from being further stimulated.

Mr. Speaker, this debate has to end at 12.05 p.m. and in the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to draw to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention the first recommendation of the Niemand Commission. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will listen to me because I only have a few minutes at my disposal. I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister the first recommendation of the Niemand Commission of Inquiry into the Occurrence of Ruling High Prices of Vacant Residential Sites, which was tabled yesterday. In the Second-Reading debate I made the point that if there are certain areas where uneconomic subdivision is taking place, the only way to deal with the problem is not by means of this type of legislation, or by placing this vast power in the hands of the Minister but by means of ecological planning on a regional basis. The Niemand Commission makes precisely this recommendation as a priority recommendation. I may say that I do not agree with all these recommendations and I would oppose some of them. I should, however, like to draw this particular recommendation to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and ask him to give consideration to holding this Bill over even at this late stage in view of this recommendation. I wish to quote from page 29 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry:

1. (a) The identification of land use (indicating the various uses such as agricultural, industrial and residential purposes, nature reserves, etc.);
2. (b) future main-road systems;
3. (c) future rail-routes;
4. (d) regional reservoirs and sewage disposal works and mains for services;
5. (e) site requirements for educational, recreation and administrative purposes, etc.

This recommendation envisages precisely what I had in mind. I believe that under such a regional plan the type of problem the hon. the Minister is trying to control would, in fact, be overcome.!

Business, interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to set the minds of the hon. members for Musgrave, Newton Park and Pietermaritzburg (District) at ease. They were concerned about what would happen if a municipality wanted more land for expansion and we would therefore have to use agricultural land. The hon. member for False Bay has just this moment given me Ordinance No. 19 in which the provisions which can be applied by the Administrator are set out. In terms of this Ordinance the Administrator can redetermine or change the boundaries of a municipality. All powers the Administrator has, are defined in this Ordinance. We are not detracting from that in any way with the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Bill. We are only interested in agricultural land. I stated in my Second-Reading speech that if the town of Stellenbosch should find that there is no more of its commonage available and that there was therefore no more land for expansion, it proclaims an adjoining piece of land. If that land is proclaimed, it is no longer agricultural land. Then it is municipal land and township development can proceed. I do not know what the hon. members are concerned about. Most of these matters were elucidated in my Second-Reading speech. There will be no disruption.

But the hon. member for Newton Park said yesterday evening and this morning again that we will force down the land price of the farmer in the interior. I cannot see how it could ever happen that a farmer’s land price could be reduced as a result of this Bill. It is more likely to help him because it will ensure that that farmer’s land is an economic unit. He also said that farmers would only be able to sell land to their neighbours. Those were his words. He wanted to create confusion with this insinuation. I cannot understand why a political issue should always be made of these matters. To give a farmer to understand that he will in future only be able to sell land to his neighbour, is nonsense. This is not what is going to happen in practice. I mentioned the fact that we are spending millions of rand to facilitate consolidation. If a piece of land is of an economic size, the owner can sell it to any person. He need not necessarily sell it only to his neighbour.

We argued for hours in this House about the question of what an economic unit is. Today the hon. member for Walmer again asked what an economic unit is. The hon. member for Newton Park has himself referred in this House to economic units. How does he then determine an economic unit? As a practical farmer one knows when a unit is economic. In spite of all our explanations, we have always been forced to hear that we are doing agriculture a disservice with this Bill. The farmer on the land comes to us and states that we should please help him to get hold of an economic piece of land because he is suffering untold hardships on a piece of land which is too small. Now we want to prevent these cases in future. We want to ensure that further uneconomic units are not created in future. A moment ago the hon. member for Walmer asked again whether 3,000 morgen in the Graaff-Reinet area is an economic unit to-day. I told him that one should take the normal circumstances into account. To-day the circumstances prevailing in that area are surely not normal. Under normal circumstances 3,000 is an economic unit, but if a farmer wanted to divide these 3,000 morgen into two units of 1,0 morgen each, we would, even under normal circumstances, say no. It is as simple as that. I do not know why I cannot get it into the heads of these people.

The insinuation is being made here that it is the farmer who is subdividing the land. That is not our only problem. This problem is a minor one in comparison with what people who want to make money are doing to our land. They are people who for their own gain are cutting up our land into small stands. I can show hon. members areas far away from a town where a man has cut up a farm into 25 morgen plots because there is a river there. Beautiful agricultural land is being cut up into 25 morgen plots. The hon. member for Mooi River referred to a farm which can tee cut up into 200 chalets. But an amendment has been moved which will deal with cases of this nature. The hon. member for Potchefstroom explained that that amendment provided that where a certificate of approval had already been issued, the matter would in such cases not be re-investigated. The Surveyor-General can proceed with it. That is the reason why the amendment has been moved. Take for example the beautiful agricultural land which that hon. member wants divided up into holiday farms. As it happened there was a case yesterday of a man who wanted a rocky koppie along the boundary of a reserve at the Kruger Game Reserve demarcated. It will never be possible to practise agriculture on that piece of land. He obtained permission because that piece of land has not been withdrawn from production because it can never produce anything. If it is. however, an area which can in fact produce, surely it is logical to say that we should take the potential of the land into account. It can then be moved to the rocky koppie if the natural beauty is taken into consideration. After all, it is not our intention to say that there should be no more holiday facilities. This matter will be approached in a practical way. The hon. member for Walmer referred to a trout stream mentioned in the Farmer’s Weekly. If I had a trout stream on my farm, I would not be prepared to give permission for it to be subdivided. After all, one does not demarcate plots in the middle of your farm because there are a few fish in a water furrow. If we find that it is a need and that it will not disrupt the agricultural potential, consent will be granted. In some cases we will have to forfeit agricultural land for holiday purposes. People are going to increase in numbers and there will be an increasing demand for holiday resorts. It is not the intention of this Bill, however, to curb this. Hon. members ought to understand that the entire intention of this Bill is to prevent what has happened in the past. We have, after all, said this repeatedly in this debate.

The hon. member for Walmer also referred to the shortage of extension officers. He said that we were burdening ourselves with a great deal of extra work, while we did not have sufficient extension officers. Because we do not have the officers, must we now say that we may as well allow the fragmentation of agricultural land to proceed apace while we have for a considerable time already, by means of planning, been doing all this in the gold fields of the Transvaal and in the Free State.

You are missing our case. You have just admitted that you are doing it at the present moment.

Yes, we are doing it, but not in all the provinces. We want it co-ordinated. We want to concentrate on agricultural land. The task of planning is not to look after agricultural land. That is the task of the Department of Agriculture.

But you admit that you already control everything.

No, I said in my Second Reading speech that the Transvaal and Free State gold fields are already being controlled. The hon. member for Mooi River can sometimes be quite intelligent. There is however something which he simply cannot understand. He wants to know what we are going to do if a piece of land has already been subdivided there and it is subsequently found that the farmer cannot make a living on it. But I did tell him that we have already spent approximately R30 million in three years and four months on the consolidation of uneconomic units. If a piece of land has perhaps been incorrectly subdivided and it is then too small or the next person to farm on it is not the right person for the job. the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure will still be approached for assistance. Then we can see whether the two pieces of land cannot be consolidated. These two pieces of land need not necessarily be adjoining. I have already told hon. members that we had cases where pieces of land which were five miles apart, have been consolidated. It is then recorded in the title deed of that farmer that the two pieces of land are brother and sister and that they may not be subdivided again.

The hon. member also wanted to know what our standpoint will be in cases where the roads administration wants to cut an economic unit in two. with a road. The roads administration can deliberately go and construct that road on the arable land. We have already discussed the matter with the provincial administrations and asked whether we cannot in future consider these problems when a road is going to be built. But then it must also be taken into account that the road will cost twice as much if it is built along the stony ridges. We must take into account whether it will be economically justifiable to build the road on the arable land or on the rocky ridge. But what do we do with this farmer whose land is being cut in two? Can hon. members on that side of the House mention to me one case of a farmer who approached us for assistance and was told by us that we could not help him. All of us want a new road, all of us want development and better transport facilities in this country, and somebody must therefore sacrifice something. No, for those specific farmers we have always said that we can help them with a loan at 5 per cent so that they can purchase additional land or so that a consolidation can be effected and so that the farmer can once again make a living. But it is still not an argument to put forward for this Bill not being passed.

An hon. member said that we should appoint a commission of inquiry. There is at present a commission of inquiry which is investigating agriculture. The hon. member for Newton Park also pleaded for this. I do not know what this commission’s findings are going to be. But I am now asking the hon. member this. He has asked for a commission of inquiry, and other speakers opposite have done the same. If that commission of inquiry states that we must put a stop to the uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land, will he accept that commission’s recommendations? Will he simply say yes or no?

We will have to see all the recommendations before we can take a decision; we will not only ask for one recommendation.

But I have told you that we have already had so many commissions and we have also had a request from the churches. In 1968 the S.A. Agricultural union was disappointed because we were not proceeding with the legislation, and now you tell us we must appoint a commission of inquiry. You ask for commissions and you get them but if a commission recommends something, you do not want to proceed with it.

The United Party wants to appoint a commission to decide for them what they must do.

I should like to inform the hon. members on the other side that the land speculators would do well to take note of this, i.e. that his halcyon days of cutting up good agricultural land to his hearts content are over. That is not why we introduced this legislation, i.e. to afford certain* people the opportunity, and to make exceptions, as you asked, to enable them to become rich from cutting up agricultural land.

The hon. member for North Rand made an interjection, and he looked at me and said I hated the farmers (boerehater). I should like to say that the standpoint of the Government towards the farmer to-day who is not the culprit in the subdivision of agricultural land is that we want to help him. In pursuance of what the hon. member for Newton Park also said yesterday, i.e. that we did not have the interests of the agriculturalist at heart, I want to say that I attach no importance to that, I ignore it. I can honestly say our standpoint is that all that is of importance every time is the agriculturalist of South Africa. That is why we have come forward with this prohibition on the injudicious subdivision of agricultural land; and in practice you will see that this system will work in such a way that when a request reaches us and there is any doubt, we will give the farmer the benefit of the doubt. We want as little disruption as possible.

I want to conclude with these words, that a good government does not adopt the standpoint of the Opposition. A good government must be able to act decisively and say, this thing is going too far. We must not seek popularity, because some time or other a farmer catches you out if you try to be popular. Just as he catches you out when you are lying, so he catches you out when you are trying to be popular, and one day our children will suffer the consequences of uneconomic land on which people cannot make a decent living.

In the definitions there is reference to various aspects of this Bill and its application for the Bantu people as apart from the non-Bantu people of South Africa. I want to refer particularly to the definition which appears on page 5, in subsection (xii), which says that “Minister” means the Minister of the Interior or, for the purposes of the application of this Act in respect of a Bantu, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Now. Sir, when this Bill was presented during the Second Reading it was motivated by the hon. the Deputy Minister as being part of the scheme following on the introduction and the adoption by this House of the Population Registration Amendment Bill during this session. It was also suggested that there was a second reason for this Bill before us at the present moment, and that was to expedite and improve administration so far as the registration of births, deaths and marriages is concerned.

Sir, I want to suggest to you that the proposed amendment to the definition of “Minister”, which implies the transfer of responsibility in respect of Bantu people from the Minister of the Interior to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, is not only undesirable but it will have the effect of causing exactly the opposite consequences to what was suggested by the hon. the Minister when this Bill was introduced. If he will take his mind back to the Population Registration Bill, with which this Bill must now link, he will find that in terms of section 4 of the Population Registration Act of 1950 as now amended, which is clause 3 of the amending Bill, the central registry which is to be established and which is then to be computerized, is to include all persons permanently resident in the Republic, all South African citizens not permanently resident and all persons to whom identity documents have been issued in terms of the Identity Documents for South-West Africa Act. Now, if that is so, the register, according to the Bill which has already been passed but not yet promulgated, must contain the names of all the Bantu in South Africa, but it is true that the State President, and now the Minister, has power to vary that provision. But his power to vary is a restrictive power because he only has power not to apply this provision of the Population Registration Act for a specified period. You will agree with me, Sir, that a specified period does not mean eternity. In other words, there cannot be a total exclusion of the names of the Bantu from the register under the powers which exist under the Act which has already been passed.

If that is so, the responsibility for the register is that of the Minister of the Interior. His responsibility is to see that the names of Bantu are included in that register. Clause 7 of the Population Registration Amendment Bill requires that one of the things that must be registered and recorded in that register is the births of Bantu. If we go further we see that the only exclusion of Bantu from the Population Registration Act. i.e. from the register, applies not to the register itself but to the identity documents which are issued from that register. You will be aware, Sir, that clause 9 of the Population Registration Amendment Bill, which we have considered, merely provides that identity documents need not be issued to Bantu who have certain other certificates of citizenship. The proviso reads—

In any event, apart from what I have said, namely that the Bantu must be registered under the Population Registration Act, it will be necesary to carry in the register the names of all those Bantu who have a driver’s licence. Those Bantu must be included in this register, and my information is that there are some 2 ½ million drivers’ licences operative in South Africa at present: I do not know how many of them are held by Bantu. Sir, one wants to get some clear thinking in regard to this division of responsibility between the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development because a series of bills have been introduced, as I say, with the idea of improving administration.

The first question that I want to ask is why this delegation is necessary, why is this division of responsibility necessary. The Minister has said that it is necessary because he must use officials in the Department of Bantu Administration and that he does use them. But, Sir, this Bill before us empowers the Minister of the Interior to use members of the police force, to use members of the Department of Justice, to use officials of the Department of Health and to use officials of the Department of Defence. They are all involved in the administration of this Bill and the mere fact that he is using officials of the Department *of Bantu Administration is no justification for dividing that responsibility. I want to know why the Minister now wants to pass all the responsibility to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in regard to the Bantu when the whole procedure of this register is so interwoven that the result is going to be a duplication and an overlapping in so far as the two registers are concerned. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has my point. If he has to put Bantu into his register—and he has to do so under the Act which has been passed—why does he now change this definition to say that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is going to look after the Bantu? Is he going to have access to this hon. Minister’s register? Is he going to take steps within that register? I want to ask him why, if the register is centralized, it is not correct and right that all the computerized work should be done centrally in one physical register? It will be more efficient; it will certainly toe less costly and it will certainly require less personnel to operate. Or, Sir, has the separation of Bantu and non-Bantu become such a serious matter to the hon. the Minister and his Department that if the personal details of Bantu and non-Bantu happen to toe stored in the cells of the same computer, this will be integration between Bantu and non-Bantu?

An integrated computer.

Because, it seems to me that that is so. I can see no other reason except that integration might take place within the memory cells of the computer somewhere in the head office of the Department.

As long as it is not miscegenation.

I have no personal knowledge of the machinations that go oh inside a computer. [Time limit].

The hon. member asks why there should now be a division of responsibility between the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as far as the registration of births, deaths and marriages is concerned. To begin with, I want to tell the hon. member that what is being laid down in legislation here, has taken place in practice in the past and if he had listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply to the Second-Reading debate he would not have been unaware of this. The Department of Bantu Administration has been doing this work during the past year by means of delegated powers. All we are doing now, is to lay down in legislation what has already been done in practice because this is in accordance with the pattern of the policy of the National Party and of the Government, i.e. that the Bantu should develop on their own and should to an increasing extent take over and carry out themselves those services which they would ultimately have to provide in their own areas. In the same way as this is being done to-day in respect of social welfare and pensions and other activities which are gradually being taken away from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and given to the Department of Coloured Affairs, to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and to the Department of Indian Affairs, so it is merely a further result of the implementation of the policy of this party to hand over this work, which is being done by the various population groups in respect of their own people and which they will ultimately have to take over, to the regional authorities and to the Department of Bantu Administration. That is the reply as far as that point is concerned.

The hon. member has advanced a further argument in which he relates this registration to the Population Registration Act where the Bantu are still at present covered by the Population Registration Act as far as the implementation of that principle is concerned. The hon. member wanted to know why, when there was centralization in respect of the population registration, there should be decentralization in respect of other activities. I want to tell the hon. member—and this must be clear to him as well—that as far as the Bantu are concerned decentralization already exists as far as the population registration is concerned. The hon. member knows that certain Bantu who already have their identity documents which have been issued by the various areas and by the Department of Bantu Administration, will never obtain identity documents under the Population Registration Act. The only Bantu who will be included in the register for this purpose are the Bantu who are in possession of fire arms and drivers’ licences. They have to be included in the register for certain purposes but, as has been said by the hon. member himself these people may be excluded toy the State President again. The hon. member is now arguing that the State President will not be able to exclude these people from the provisions of this Act indefinitely. This I concede, but he should also concede that the State President may, from time to time, grant postponements repeatedly and ad infinitum He cannot say that he will: exclude them forever, but he may keep on excluding them from time to time.

There is therefore decentralization in respect of the Population Registration Act as well. These activities will gradually be taken over by the Department of Bantu Administration and by the Bantu areas. That argument of the hon. member therefore falls away. But the point we are dealing with in this clause is whether births, marriages and deaths are controlled by the Department of the Interior for all races and whether the Department of Bantu Administration has to deal with the registration in respect of Bantu? Although the work in the districts will be carried out by the same people, i.e. by the police or by other registrars, the ultimate responsibility for the administration of those matters will be handed over to the Department of Bantu Administration as they are bing carried out in practice to-day although this is being done in terms of delegated powers.

The hon. member for Parow has completely misinformed himself to justify the arguments he has raised. For instance, the hon. member for Parow should be aware that if any Bantu at the present time requires a copy of a marriage certificate where the marriage has been solemnized according to the laws of the country and not according to Bantu custom, he applies to the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths for that copy; that is where it is kept. He does not apply to the Department of Bantu Administration. The marriage certificates are kept there now at this very moment. Then I come to the next point on which the hon. member has misinformed himself. He was the one who stood up here and in a long speech supported the establishment of this registry because it would be a centralized registry, which would cover as section 4 of the Population Registration Act says, all persons permanently resident in the Republic.

But with exclusions.

No, all persons. The hon. member has not read this clause. There are no exemptions, in regard to the Bantu, as to what should go into the register.

Those who have identity documents.

No, Sir, that is just my point-The hon. member does not want to see this because it lays bare the fallacy of his argument. There are two things which the Population Registration Amendment Bill does; the one is to create a register and the second is to provide for the issue of identity documents. The hon. member is quite right in saying that identity documents are not issued to a Bantu who has a certificate of citizenship of the Bantu homeland but that exclusion does not apply to the register. The law now requires that that register shall contain the names of all Bantu persons in South Africa. That is my point. It is a duplication of registers. Is the Department of Bantu Administration and Development going to build a similar building and put in a similar computer and have set-up similar to that which is now being established? Because if that is to happen, if that is the type of decentralization which is envisaged by the amendment in this clause, then there certainly can be no saving.

The hon. member must also remember this when he says that the procedure is the same as that which is presently applied; it is not. At present officials of the Department of Bantu Administration are used to deal with the regional or district registries which now exist; in other words, they are kept by various officers of the Department of the Interior, by regional representatives of the Department of the Interior; they are kept at magistrate courts; they are kept at Bantu Commissioners’ courts, and they are kept all over the place; they have been decentralized. But, Sir, what are the provisions of this Bill before us? This Bill abolishes all those regional registries; they will all disappear. The registration will now be centralized and that is what is desired by the Department; that is the motivation of the officials. If that is so and if the names of the Bantu have to be recorded in this central registry which is under the Minister of the Interior, what earthly justification is there for the passing of responsibility for all Bantu to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development? It will achieve nothing; it does not relieve the hon. the Minister of the responsibility of having that information and it may even lead to a duplication, because of the birth of a Bantu is registered—and it can be registered at any police station—who is to receive the information for inclusion in the registry? It must go through the Ministry of the Interior under the Minister’s obligations under the Population Registration Act. Must it also go then to Bantu Administration? It seems to me that this is a matter that needs further consideration. There are one or two other aspects that I want to raise.

Mr. Chairman, I do hope that we are going to have a reply from the hon. the Deputy Minister to the arguments which were advanced by the hon. member for Green Point and the non-answer which we got from the hon. member for Parow. I just feel that a responsible answer is required from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Green Point has raised a matter of consequence which calls for an explanation. In the first place, I have to tell the hon. member that he is dealing mainly with an administrative aspect and that we are not dealing with principles now. I think that in his original view of this matter, what the hon. member had in mind was more particularly registers as such rather than a system. What he had in mind was more specifically the book. When one thinks of 20 million names, one thinks more of a very large book than the system. But this is nevertheless an important aspect. I shall furnish the hon. member with an explanation as best as I am able to do at this stage. The population register as such falls under the Secretary to the Interior. One part of this register is already with the Department of Bantu Administration and they have been dealing with this part since 1951. They have been dealing with it since the commencement of the Population Registration Act in 1951. The consequential aspect of this will be found in section I of the Population Registration Act, 1950. Although the responsibility is therefore vested in the Secretary to the Interior, the administrative aspect of it is already vested in the Department of Bantu Administration. Some of the people who are helping to do this work, can be Bantu and are, in fact, Bantu.

As regards the births, marriages and deaths register, we actually have something separate which, as I have explained initially, we want to incorporate in the future Population Registration register. For administrative purposes the Bantu register which is being kept is physically separate from the others. Population registration is compulsory. For that reason it remains with the Department of the Interior and not with the Department of Bantu Administration. This register is being kept with that Department because it has a different motive as basis, namely population registration. This is something we are not allowed to discuss here because it is a matter of principle. But in view of the subsequent development of the Bantu, which is also a principle and which has repeatedly been embodied in legislation, it is better for his to be kept physically separate at this stage. It nevertheless forms part of one system of registers. The delegation of the births, marriages and deaths registration register to the Department of Bantu Administration, has remained in force for the past 11 years. For this there is a delegation as well.

That is wrong.

There is a delegation for that. Provision is being made for that in section 2 (2) (a) of the original Act. It has been administratively separate in this way for the past 11 years. It was delegated at that time. This is merely being legalized at present. A further reason for this is that the Department of Bantu Administration has a different system of registers in respect of the population group they represent. Many other aspects are included in that system of registers, such as, inter alia, employment contracts, fingerprints, and so forth. The question arises in which direction we are going with these people. If every one of them were to have a computer, although that hon. member thinks it unnecessary for every one of them to have a computer, the computers will be able to communicate with each other. Although it is not specifically laid down in which way births, marriages and deaths should be registered by the Department of Bantu Administration, this nevertheless corresponds with the direction in which we are moving with the Bantu.

I now come to the second point I want to raise. Hon. members may ask why two registers have to be kept. Since frequent mention is made of the saving in manpower, I am able to say that manpower is, in fact, being saved here. If we were to keep one single register for 20 million people the work would have to be done by Whites as we have said here again and again. This is one single population register, but it contains various registers as part of a central system. If the relevant subdivision is handed over to the Department of Bantu Administration they will be able to employ a large number of Bantu to do the work. We would not have been able to do this in the case of the white population register, to call it by this name now. I want to content myself with this explanation. I hope the hon. member understands my explanation. This is how I see the matter and this is how I feel I can best explain it to him.

Mr. Chairman, if ever we have heard a nonsensical explanation it is the one we have just had from the hon. the Deputy Minister. I say this with due respect to him. He says that there is one register but that it is subdivided. There is one register but it is going to have several computers. The whole purpose of this legislation before us is to bring about efficiency and effect savings. I am sorry the hon. the Minister is not here at the moment. The position is simply that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister have not thought through the consequences of this legislation which is before us. The hon. the Deputy Minister talks about the separation of the physical and administrative aspects of this legislation. The physical aspect has already been accepted by this House namely that there shall be on register. That has been accepted and is contained in the Population Registration Act.

Now in terms of the so-called administrative separation the Minister of Bantu Administration must come into the matter. Why should he come into it? Year after year we have been suffering in this House because we cannot get information which is relative to the Bantu population of South Africa, because the responsibilities of the Minister of the Interior have been delegated to another Department which is not equipped to do that work. We asked the hon., the Minister what are the population figures. We know now what is going to happen under the present census. The figures which are being supplied by this Department acting as an under-department for the Department of the Interior, will be out by millions as regards what this population is in South Africa. We have asked over and over again in this House for the cost of administering the population register but we cannot get that figure. The Minister of the Interior has told us that he does not keep separate records and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in command of his growing empire, apparently does not know what it is costing him to do this job for the Department of the Interior. I believe that it would be a wrong, inadvisable and expensive step to adopt what is proposed in this clause of the Bill, namely to divide the responsibility for the statistics and the personal details of the population of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister has suggested that all this information will be incorporated in one register, but that the administration of the register must be separated. Why must it be separated? If there is ineffectual registration of the births, marriages and deaths of the Bantu, who is responsible? Is it the Minister who is supposed to keep the register, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister who is responsible for supplying facts, figures and information to the country, or the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who is not carrying out his administrative responsibilities through his Department. What does this hon. Minister do, who is responsible for the register, if he is not receiving this information from the other Department? I ask this because he has no say over how the registration of the Bantu people of South Africa will take place. Surely, the hon. the Deputy Minister realizes that it is a vital matter in every aspect of life in South Africa to know exactly and precisely what is happening to the population strength and the variation in population of the Bantu people in South Africa. We are all sitting on the edge of a volcano waiting for the results of the census because the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has not done the work which was delegated to it by the hon. the Minister and his predecessor. I want to move as amendment—

We in this House and the country want to know whether, if information on births, marriages and deaths is required, responsibility will rest on one Minister and that is the Minister of the Interior. Then the hon. the Minister of the Interior cannot shield behind the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development cannot shield behind the Minister of the Interior. I believe it is essential that there should be no buck-passing as an hon. member has just said, between Ministers, but that one Minister should be responsible because in South Africa the Minister of the Interior has always been responsible for that. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister is with me in this matter. You cannot have divided control over matters of this nature. Later on we shall refer to other aspects of this Bill and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment. He can continue to delegate, he is going to use the Police, the officials of the Department of Health and is going to use the officials of the Department of Justice. At this very moment they assist them in the carrying out of the Principal Act, but let them be used under his authority. Then he will be in a position to give the information which we should have and which should always be available to this House. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in the absence of the hon. the Minister, will see that the form in which we are having this Bill before us is an expeditious one and that it is an approach which he could well accept.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that if the hon. member for Green Point remains long enough in this House, he will in due course become used to the fact that South Africa is definitely moving in a two-stream direction, i.e. White and non-white.

Even if it is in a computer?

Yes, even in a computer as the hon. member wants to put it. The hon. the Minister will simply have to become used to it. The hon. the Deputy Minister was quite correct in saying that the present position is that our population register is, in fact, divided into two parts for administration purposes—one for Whites and one for non-Whites. The hon. member should tell me now whether he wants that population register. Does the hon. member want them to be mixed up, or what do they want? At present this is a register which is being kept by the Department of the Interior. At the present moment, however, there are two subdivisions of that register, namely the white section and the non-white section. The Department of Bantu Administration is to an increasing extent taking over that part of their work, and this Act merely gives expression to that. Under these circumstances I have to say that the hon. member for Green Point in saying that this was nonsensical, was being nonsensical himself to have wanted it otherwise. This is how it is going to be in the future, and this is how it is at present.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prinsh of just said that the register is divided into two parts, one for Whites and one for the non-Whites.

This is the position administratively.

One part for the Whites and one part for the non-Whites? Is that right? Now the hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head; he had better prepare himself before he comes to this debate.

There is one for Bantu and then one for non-Bantu.

That is not what he said; he said Whites and non-Whites.

You know only too well what he wanted to say.

This debate is now deteriorating because according to the hon. member for Parow we are now to assume what the hon. the Minister meant. He said we should know what the hon. the member meant; he meant Bantu and non-Bantu, not White and non-White. It shows the confusion they have on that side of the House. They do not know what we are discussing. The hon. member for Prinsh of does not know what we are discussing.

Obviously, you don’t know either.

There is one register and that the hon. the Deputy Minister admits. So, a division of register is not brought about as the hon. member for Prinsh of wants. He wants to keep apartheid in the registers and this register has no apartheid. It is one register, whether you like it or not. Who does the work for the Coloureds or for the Indians?

What register are you referring to?

The population registration, register.

We are not discussing that.

All the information goes into one register, does it not? No matter where it is collected it goes into one register.

He does not know what he is talking about.

Is that not right?

Yes, it is right.

The hon. the Minister says it is right it goes into one register.

Who does the administration as regards the Bantu?

Now I am asked Who does the administration. The officials of the Government do it.

Who are the officials. Are they not from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development?

Who does it for the Coloureds?

Whites.

Who does it for the Coloureds? The Department of Coloured Affairs? Who does it for the Indians. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member should confine himself to clause 1.

Why should only the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development be separated from the other Ministers? This is becoming too prevalent. When the Government tries to control job reservation, what does it do? It has one Minister for everybody, except for the Bantu. They have introduced legislation which gives the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development the power to reserve jobs for other races but the Bantu and to prohibit the Bantu from doing certain work. What we object to is the continual granting of more and more powers to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He is not even here to-day to defend his case and to say he should get it. We expected him to be here to say that in the past he did the work for the Minister of the Interior and that his department has done its work and therefore he should be given the original power and not just delegated power. He must tell us why he must be given the power but he is not even here. Here is not even one representative of the Bantu Affairs group who can state the case why there should be a change in the law. We say it is unnecessary that there should be a change in the law, because it has worked in the past. The hon the Minister can delegate his powers and we are opposed to giving any more powers to the hon the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Mr. Chairman, we are back at the basic difference again. The basic motivation here is the differing views on policy and nothing else. I made it dear to the hon. member that this was being done in order to promote administrative efficiency. Linked with that is the question, whether they want to know it or not, that we are moving in the direction that the Bantu will eventually have to handle his own affairs. This legislation entails a kind of transfer, but decentralization is also involved. It also saves manpower.

How can it save manpower?

I shall return to that, if necessary. The hon. member must please listen. I have already told him that numerous officials of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development are keeping that part of the population register at present. It is in fact one register. Hon. members on that side of the House are seeing two books in their minds. They are seeing two systems. In the end they see the spectre of apartheid again. That is all they are seeing. This is a form in which the central population register has been kept in the past and in which it is still being kept. It will be continued in this way in the future. Because the Bantu has his own special register system and because of the fact that in their birth, marriage and death registrations as a separate ethnic group they may want to do things on their own in the future, we are continuing with the system that has been followed for 11 years. That is the main reason. We are now simply giving those people the statutory right to continue with that. As regards population registration—and this is the main sore point—the Department of the Interior is the overall department. It is the department which determines that there still has to be population registration in respect of the Bantu as well. Population registration will now no longer be in the hands of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. It is simply part of the work which is being transferred to them. The births marriages and deaths register will now be incorporated in their register system as a part of it, because eventually they may want to do that specific aspect of population data in a different way.

Why can your Department not be responsible for that?

I have already explained to that hon. member that the Minister of the Interior will still be the responsible person in respect of population registration as such. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not get impatient. They will not gain anything by it. I shall come back to that again in respect of births, marriages and deaths we are dealing with a specific population group with specific problems of its own. The Department which is responsible for this has been doing the work in its own way for 11 years. What this Department has been doing in practice for 11 years is now simply being statutorily assigned to it. That is all. Nothing else is being changed. Since we are essentially dealing with a principle here, it will be of no avail to argue about the matter any further: I should like to meet hon. members on that side of the House halfway if possible, because originally said that they welcomed the legislation in a certain sense. But as regards this specific matter, that side of the House wants us to go back or the road on which we have already travelled a long way. They want us to undo something we have been doing for a long time.

Mr. Chairman, how can the hon. the Deputy Minister say that this will result in better administration and that it will save manpower?

Why not?

Why not? Because in terms of the Bill which was accepted by this House earlier in this Session, there shall be a register in which shall be kept all the names of all persons permanently resident in the Republic. In terms of that law the birth or death of a Bantu has to be registered in the register kept by the Registrar via this hon. Deputy Minister’s Department. It has to be done. Now he says that it has to be re-processed and it also has to go to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

No, you are wide of the mark.

If I am wide of the mark, why is the law which was passed here earlier, not being altered? Where in the law is it provided that there shall be a register kept by the Department of Bantu Administration? There is no mention made in any law that I am aware of, of a separate register to be kept by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

Is that your question?

No, that is just one of my questions. I am glad the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to reply to my questions. The only way in which this register could be compiled is with a computer. There is a computer with people to feed it already with the Department. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister now contemplate to have a separate computer for the Bantu? This separate computer will also have its own staff from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. They will be separately trained so that they can put the separate information into those computers. Surely, if we have one register and one computer, any additional register must mean an addition to the manpower. For the life of us, we cannot understand why this is necessary. The distinction which is drawn in the first place by the hon. member for Parow is between "blanke” and “nie-blanke”.

No, I have never said that.

I am sorry; it was the hon. member for Prinsh of. There are so many different experts in that corner of the House. The hon. member for Prinsh of spoke about “blankes” and “nie-blankes”. [Interjections.] I have made a note of it. I hope the hon. member will correct himself later. Afterwards we heard it was Bantu and non-Bantu. This is a very significant difference which is appearing on that side of the House, the difference between “Bantoe” and “nie-Ban-toe”. This is most significant.

You are splitting hairs.

Splitting hairs! Can the hon. member tell me what hair I am splitting? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed, but he must keep to the clause.

What this clause does is in fact to split, not hairs, but the population group into a Bantu group and a non-Bantu group. That is the effect of it. That is what this definition says. So far as Bantu are concerned, you have a different organization. As far as everyone else is concerned, you have the existing organization. The hon. member for Waterkloof is a “wetsgeleerde”. I hope he will have a close look at this clause and tell me why it is that there is in fact a difference. If that difference exists for any good reason does it not mean that we will have to have two provisions?

I will answer.

We might get a third answer because the hon. the Deputy Minister said he would answer too. It sounds very much like that story we heard sometime before about 5 million hearts beating as one. Who are those hearts and where are we going? The hon. the Deputy Minister appeared to have something to say just now. I hope he will explain to us what he means and that he will explain to us that he does not mean what the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Prinsh of mean.

Mr. Chairman, I want to do my best to explain to this hon. member what I have in mind. I am not concerned with the other hon. members. At the moment they are doing their part and I am highly satisfied with what they have already done. The hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned that the law provides for only one register. He asked me where mention is made in the law of two registers. It need not be written in the law. It is part of the administrative way these matters are dealt with an have been done for the past 11 years. It comes back to what I said at the outset, namely that it is a question of a system. Hon. members opposite have it against the principle. The hon. member for Durban (North) talked about the two computers. I can tell the hon. member that the Bantu Division has had its own computer for some time. It has been found necessary for them to have one, not only for the population register, but because lots of other work can be done by a computer, as hon. members should know. They have much more work than any hon. member can imagine. In conclusion I want to say that it is no use mincing words.

Hon. members should by now surely know what I mean, what the law means and says, and that many of these matters are dealt with administratively. It is the principle they are worried about, but I want to remind them again that it is a system we are talking about. In this system many registers are used, but they are all incorporated in the one system, the population register. I do not think I can explain it more clearly to hon. members opposite.

Mr. Chairman, the last thing the hon. the Deputy Minister has said has made our confusion even more confounded. He said there is one system with different principles which all eventually amalgamate in one principle.

Different registers.

Different registers, one principle, and several systems.

I said there is one system which actually means some registers incorporated in the whole system. These registers are physically separated, but not administratively, not in a corporate sense.

It is a system …

The hon. member is playing with words.

We are amending an Act of Parliament and one has to understand what it means. Now we hear that it means one principle, with different registers, in a corporate sense.

Under two Ministers.

Yes, under two Ministers I would like to know what that means. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that there is a separate computer for Bantu already. Does this computer operate in the Department of Bantu Administration at the moment as a separate computer from the one in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Department?

Yes.

Why is it necessary to have two computers with two separate staffs to feed these computers to get out of them figures which, as the hon. the Deputy Minister says, all go into one central register? This is what I find hard to understand.

Is that your only question, or do you have others?

Surely that means that two computers have to be programmed and that different programmes for each computer are necessary. Does one computer have to be programmed for Coloureds, Indians and Whites, or are both programmed in the same way with the same figures and the same information? If so, what is the difference between programming a computer which is intended to bring forth figures for the register of the Population Registration Act and programming one which is intended to bring forth the figures that are required for the Bantu? Why cannot they be programmed together? Without a better explanation from the hon. the Deputy Minister than the last one, this does not really make any sort of sense to me. I am concerned about this, because we are making a change in the law which must have some meaning. But it has no meaning and it has no sense and no purpose unless it is explained. So far it has not been explained.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (North) is really trying to split hairs. He even tries to tear apart what was said by the hon. member for Prinsh of. Nowhere in this Bill is any mention made of Coloureds and Indians.

He said non-Whites.

But what is a Bantu? Is he not a non-White? What the hon. members opposite are discussing appears in the clause concerned. The hon. member’s amendment deals with the definition of “Minister”. In clause 1 of the Bill the definition is given as follows—

Coloureds are never mentioned here and consequently the hon. member for Prinsh of had no other groups in mind when he discussed this matter. He was referring to Bantu. Hon. members on the other side must stop splitting hairs.

What did he say?

He said “non-Whites”. Is a Bantu not a non-White?

What is a Coloured?

He is also a non-White. When the hon. member for Prinsh of spoke, however, he spoke of Bantu. Hon. members opposite know very well what it is about. If the hon. members for Green Point and Durban (North) do not want to listen to what I am saying, are they arguing simply to delay the business of the House and to commit obstruction? Since I am now discussing this matter those hon. members should listen to me.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member allowed to reflect on the Chair by suggesting that hon. members on this side are talking merely to waste the time of the House?

The hon. member may proceed.

I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Durban (North) that they are harping on the fact that there will be more administrative work, and duplication as well. The fact of the matter is that we shall eliminate a great deal of duplication by means of this legislation. They know that at Umtata, Kokstad, Bellville and in every magisterial district in this country a register is kept which is now being done away with by means of this legislation. All that is going to happen now, is that the information received in these various districts will go to central places, where it will be processed. There the information will be kept in two divisions. It will be processed under the supervision of the Department of the Interior, but, as these clauses put it so clearly, for the purposes of the administration of marriages, births and deaths the Department of Bantu Administration will do the work in respect of that population group. This Department works differently and uses other methods than do, for example, the Departments of Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs. In connection with marriages, for example, it is a fact that a Bantu may have more than one wife. Even in respect of births the methods used by those Departments differ. Through the years the Department of Bantu Administration has developed methods by which they deal with these matters in the way they find best.

What happens when a Bantu marries a Coloured?

The hon. member is merely trying to create confusion. He does not know what the Bill provides in any case. I am talking to the hon. members for Green Point and Durban (North). As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, it has been the position for the past 11 years that for the purposes of the administration of the work in connection with marriages, births and deaths the Department of Bantu Administration is used for the work in respect of Bantu. They are doing this work by way of delegation, and now statutory provision is being made in this regard. The position is that for the purposes of the central register which is being established and which will be under the sole control of the Minister of the Interior, we do not need all the details in respect of the Bantu that we expect in respect of the Indians, the Coloureds and the Whites. For this reason it is not necessary for us to obtain them, and for this reason the Department of Bantu Administration can deal with this matter in the way it finds best.

We do not need those details for the central register because we are issuing identity documents to these other groups for which we need more specific information, information we do not need in respect of the Bantu, because the Bantu will not receive identity documents, at any rate not all of them, and even these can be excluded. Because we need this specific information in order to record it in the central register, information which is more comprehensive in the case of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians for the purposes of their identity documents than in the case of the Bantu, we want to administer these two things separately. Hon. members on the other side only need a little common sense to be able to understand it. But they are not so much concerned about this; they are concerned about the principle. They desire information which is not relevant here at all. After all, census and statistics are not under discussion now, but yet that is what the hon. member for Green Point discussed.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

I am doing this in order to afford the Minister of Defence an opportunity to make a statement.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the House that the South African submarine Maria van Riebeeck was involved in a collision on the surface with the French submarine Galatee in the approaches to the harbour of Toulon at 27 minutes past eight (French time) last night, 20th August, 1970.

According to information at my disposal four crew members of the Galatee were killed and two have not yet been found. Several others sustained injuries. The Galatee was seriously damaged.

S.A.S. Maria van Riebeeck suffered slight damage, and no persons lost their lives or suffered injuries.

The French Naval Authorities have ordered an inquiry and the S.A. Navy has also appointed a Board of Inquiry, which will leave for France immediately. This Board is composed of the following officers:

Commodore J. C. Walters—Hydrographer of the S.A. Navy.

Commander J. A. de Kock—Staff Officer, Navigation.

Lieutenant-Commander V. L. Martinelli— Staff Officer, Legal Matters.

I have already conveyed our sincere sympathy to the French authorities and the next of kin.

Sir, we have already had a lot of argument across the floor of the House this afternoon about this question. Hon. members in the corner over there, particularly the hon. member for Parow, keep on coming back with this question of administration. We accept that the physical action of collecting reports of births and deaths among the Bantu has to be undertaken by officials of the Department of Bantu Administration. I, by virtue of my experience in the Department, am well aware of that, having acted ex officio as the registrar of births and deaths for Bantu on the one hand and for non-Bantu on the other hand. Consequently we are prepared to accept this. But those forms I collected at that time all went to one central registry. In terms of the Bill we passed earlier on we have one register. Why, then, should there for this purpose be two registers?

That is something which we cannot understand and which hon. members opposite have been unable to explain to us. Why should the register now be divided into two, each section under a different Minister? Let us have a look at the definition of “Secretary” in this Bill. The definition of “Secretary” says it means the Secretary for the Interior, or for the purposes of the application of this Act in respect of a Bantu, the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development. To be con-sequential, I therefore move as an amendment—

Let me remind the hon. member for Parow, and also the hon. member for Prinsh of, of the speech made in this House yesterday by the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He made the point that the destiny of the Coloureds lay with that of the Whites in this country. Is this not an extension of what that hon. member was saying?

Order! That point has been stated time and time again.

I will abide by your ruling, Sir, and will not take it any further.

I should like to come back to the matter which the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to explain to us, and to the explanation which the hon. member for Parow tried to give. The hon. member will not get away with dismissing this whole matter by talking of administrative differences. The matter goes further than that.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to what is stated in the clause, otherwise I will be obliged to ask him to resume his seat.

Very well, Mr. Chairman. I shall reply to the hon. member with specific reference to this clause. Let me ask the hon. member, what would the position be if a Bantu married a Coloured? Which Department would then be involved?

Order! What does that have to do with this clause?

Mr. Chairman, this Bill deals with the registration of births, marriages and deaths. As the hon. member for Parow will not be able to answer me, I want to address myself to the Deputy Minister. The matter looks so simple to me, and that is why I am amazed that he cannot explain it to us. The background against which this clause as well as the objections of this side of the House must be seen is this: There is a population register which includes all persons, including the Bantu. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister and his Department are in sole control of the population register. Let us assume for argument’s sake that the name of Bantu A appears in that register. He has been born and now he marries. Bantu A appears in the register of the Minister, and only in that, and now Bantu A marries. But now he does not go back to his file; he does not go back to the computer which absorbed him in the first instance. No. he now goes to the Department of Bantu Administration. This looks like a duplication of functions to me and, with great respect, even if the hon. the Deputy Minister stands on his head he cannot explain to me that this is a simplification of the matter. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is so concerned about the Minister of Bantu Administration. After all, the Minister of Bantu Administration is not a law unto him-self. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister is in charge of the register, and if a person dies or marries or is born, everything must be referred back to the register of which he is in charge. But now suddenly it is referred back to Bantu Administration and then I suppose telephone calls are made or a Bantu messenger is sent to the Department of the Interior. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that we are being fair, that since the population register as the foundation, is controlled by him, he must also be prepared to control all facets of the activities of the person who has been registered; and if he does not want to do so, there must be reasons for that, and it is certainly not a question of the saving of manpower. It cannot be. The same machine can perform all these tasks, merely by giving a little card a different index. If you press one button, it throws out the details of any person, whether he has died or is going to marry or has been born.

Then everything is confused.

No, it is very clear that the computers are not as confused as the hon. the Deputy Minister about the matter. I should like to know very specifically from the Deputy Minister why in this specific respect he must make a specific exception in the case of the Minister of Bantu Administration, while he does not have the same exception in the Population Registration Act. If he had made the same exception in the original Population Registration Act, I would have had no difficulty, but he did not do so; now this is a departure from the whole system, and I honestly believe the Deputy Minister owes us a clearer reply than he has given so far.

I shall do my best to explain. I shall try again. It should be remembered that I said originally there was a basic difference, and we must not obscure that basic difference with words. But I want to give an explanation to the hon. member for Maitland, who spoke towards the end. If Bantu A marries, it goes back to his file, but he goes back directly to the central population register, to that part of the register which has been kept with Bantu Administration ever since 1951, as I said at the outset.

May I ask the Deputy Minister whether that 1951 matter falls under him?

The Population Registration Act of 1950 provided that the Secretary or the Minister of the Interior had the overall authority, and then there was the power to delegate. This is continued in the definition of “Secretary”, which the hon. member will find in the first section of the Population. Registration Act. That power of delegation provides that he may appoint officers to do that specific work, and this is the way in which it has been done. In other words, the particulars of Bantu A go back directly to the central population register, to that part of the register which has been with Bantu Administration ever since 1951. I cannot explain it more clearly than this.

As regards the hon. member for Durban (North), the hon. member tried to draw me into a technical discussion of how the programming of a computer works, and of the amount of work one can do with one computer, etc. I agree that one can do an enormous amount of work with it. One can probably have a computer select a wife for one as well. But I want to say this. The computer which Bantu Administration has at present, is not there merely because of this work it has to do. There has been sufficient reason for having one there for a long time; this is only a small part of the work it is doing there. I therefore do not think that we should now go into the details of programming, because it is only a part of the enormous amount of work that is being done by the computer, as I have said. Let us in the final instance try to understand only this. I cannot explain everything in the smallest detail to you and split hairs now. After all, we must have some understanding of the matter too, and I think hon. members already know what I mean, but they saw this as an opportunity of attacking the principle of separation as such. Let me just come to this point in the final instance. In the future everything will still be incorporated in the central population register, which consists of component parts, since we have since 1951 had the legal right to delegate matters to Bantu Administration, the right to retain part of it as part of one central register, and everything will still fall under the Minister of the Interior. But as a result of the particular registration system of the Bantu, in which other details are included as well, it was decided that this register, as it is here, just as in the case of Bantu Ad-ministration there is a register of fingerprints and service contracts, etc., will also go to Bantu Administration in view of the manpower we already have and the administration we have already built up and the function they are already fulfilling as a department with specialized knowledge of such matters. Basically, then, we differ on this. We differ basically on the question of separation. I cannot explain this matter to you more clearly than I have done, except to say in conclusion … Have you finished consulting?

No, I do not need any consultation.

Very well. In conclusion, I may just say this. This registration system of births and marriages and the obligations at present being imposed and the fact that it is with Bantu Administration, make it easier for that administration, for that Minister and for the people he is working with, to develop their own particular system in their own particular way in the future, and what is more, it is right, as it has always been in the opinion of this side of the House, that these people should get this opportunity. In other words, we are not restricting them and we are not making provisions applicable to them in the finer details in which we are making them applicable to the non-Bantu.

I do not want to waste the Committee’s time, but I just want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is on the wrong track if he thinks it is a question of separation or non-separation, because if it is a question of separation, he has already gone astray, because he does not apply separation between a Coloured person and a white person. Separation has nothing to do with the matter. The Deputy Minister is already not applying separation. There is no difference, as far as the Deputy Minister is concerned, between a Coloured person and a white person in his registration system. Therefore separation has nothing to do with the matter.

But I have stood up to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister just one question. Can he explain to the Committee why he does not need this specific clause in the Population Registration Act, and why he needs it specifically in this legislation? If he had needed it before, I could understand it now, but why the exception by way of this clause?

Because it is Government policy and a Government decision that the population register, as a central register controlled by the Government as it is constituted at present should remain under the control of one Minister, because this aspect which we are discussing concerns a control which can change in time, and because we are dealing with various groups, as a result of which a change can come about. But there is only one Minister: this is the decision and this is what you have pleaded for from the outset. You therefore should not ask why this is the position.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question?

No, I cannot allow it. The hon. member has had enough turns to speak.

Question put: That the words after "Interior” in line 48, page 5, to the end of paragraph (xii), stand part of the Clause.

Sir, a few moments ago the hon. the Deputy Minister told us that there would be one register, but that it would be administered under two heads, i.e. by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and by himself. Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister is quite correct in what he said to us: whether he was not perhaps mistaken and not properly informed himself because if he looks at clause 4, he will find that the proposed new section 3A (2) reads—

Sir, if that is being done, where is the one register, where is the one responsibility which he assured us exists? Because this new subsection provides that everything shall be passed to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Sir, I realize that it would be incorrect and improper for me to pursue a debate on a clause which this Committee has accepted. The Committee has agreed that there should be this division of responsibility under the definitions clause. I do not want to pursue it and we must now view the subsequent clauses in the light of the fact that the Committee has adopted the definition clause although we were opposed to this divided authority. Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I believe that this will be fatal to the efficiency of the register, unless the Deputy Minister can tell us that he accepts that there are in fact to be two physically separated institutions dealing with the registrations of births, marriages and deaths. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, although under the definition clause which we have just passed this power is transferred to the Minister of Bantu Administration, will in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of accuracy, in the interests of economy collaborate with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and see that these documents remain physically under one roof. The hon. the Deputy Minister must appreciate that if he passes over the custody of notices, returns, registers and other documents referring to the births, marriages and deaths of Bantu, to Bantu Administration, then what he is trying to keep and must continue to keep and be responsible for, i.e. the records of drivers’ licences, firearm licences etc., issued to Bantu, will be incomplete. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will not give us the assurance, although we have passed the definition clause which means divided responsibility so far as the implementation of this Bill is concerned, that he will still investigate the position, because I do not believe that the Department of Bantu Administration has yet set up their computer for a population register. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. I know that the Ministry of the Interior is busy with its building and that a computer is on order. But, Sir, if the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development has not yet set up a computer then I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to act on an agency basis for the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and to run the register for him on the same computer.

Be consistent.

Sir, we do not need a duplication; we do not need to waste the country’s money on a duplication, and I venture to suggest on the basis of my knowledge of some of the senior officials of the Ministry of the Interior, that they will be able to cope with both registries although for some reason, which I have not been able to understand, they must be kept under two departments.

Sir, I repeat my appeal to the hon. the Minister. I do not think it is necessary that there must be a physical duplication of all these records. The system works all right at the present moment. I have indicated to the hon. the Deputy Minister that nobody has really worried about the Bantu registries. They have not been effectively kept. The marriages have been recorded and deaths, where deceased estates, etc. have been involved, and so on have been recorded in the central registry. I believe that it would lead to efficiency if the hon. the Deputy Minister were to see to it that there is merely token delivery of the key to these documents to Bantu Administration. We do not like the clause; we are going to oppose it, but if it is adopted by this House, let this be a token delivery. Mr. Chairman, you are aware that one can deliver a motor-car by merely handing over the key of the garage. I suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he has to hand over all these records to the Ministry of Bantu Administration, he should give them a duplicate key to the office and that he should keep the records where they are, i.e. in the offices of the Ministry of the Interior, for the sake of efficiency and for the sake of economy. We will oppose the clause because we do not believe that this physical handing over of the records is necessary.

The hon. member for Green Point almost moved me to tears with his very courteous request, but unfortunately I cannot accede to that request. I want to tell the hon. member that it is in fact the case that two registers are being kept in regard to births, marriages and deaths. But I can also give him this assurance, i.e. that as far as the central population register is concerned, the authority will continue to be vested in the Ministry of the Interior. At this stage I cannot see how it can be changed, unless we eventually have people who are living somewhere else and who have self-government.

But I want to add this as well: The hon. member referred to duplication. Although there are two registers, it does not amount to duplication in this case. There are in fact two different registers forming part of a central register relating to births, marriages and deaths, but as far as the population register is concerned it will, statutorily, remain under the Minister of the Interior. Unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member more assurance than that.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 9:

Sir, in this matter I want to seek some information from the hon. the Deputy Minister. This clause relates to the alteration of a birth registration to indicate classification in terms of the Population Registration Act. The amendments which are included here, provide first of all that the Secretary shall have certain powers to make amendments and, of course, it deals with the fact that there will no longer be a district registry. But the proposed new section 7A (1A) goes on to say—

As far as I understand this Act, information regarding birth registries will be in the hands of the Secretary for the Interior only. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that to me already. He is responsible for the registry, and if that registry is there, it will contain the registration of all Bantu births as well as white births. What I wanted to ask the Deputy Minister is this: One wonders what other Secretary might have custody of that birth registry. I have not been able to see it. It will not be the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development because he merely has a duplication of what the Secretary for the Interior has. It is a question here of suggesting that information should be passed to the Secretary who has got custody of such register. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could explain it to me. It may be that this is just the safeguard put in here in case we go on and separate the computers for Coloureds and Indians as well.

Are you enjoying yourself, Lionel?

Perhaps the hon. member for Waterkloof can tell me. I cannot find out what other Secretary might have them.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry I cannot hear the mumbling. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us that the register is his responsibility I should like to know what other Secretary could have records of this.

Mr. Chairman, the birth registration will be done by the Secretary for the Interior. But this was already incorporated in the old Act. In the Population Registration Act it is also the Secretary for the Interior. He exercises control over the registration of population groups. If the Secretary for the Interior is of the opinion that in his Department there is a wrong population classification as compared with the birth registration done by the Department of Bantu Administration, he obtains the right in terms of this clause to direct that the birth register of that person be altered to that of another population group. He retains that right. The Secretary for the Interior retains the right to classify the population, whereas the Secretary for Bantu Administration registers births. And if he should register a birth wrongly in so far as that person’s population group is concerned, the Secretary for the Interior retains the right to alter that registration, for instance from that of a Bantu to that of a Coloured.

I do not understand the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the responsibility for the register was that of his Department, and that there was merely a duplication of the register with the Secretary for Bantu Administration. The register is that of the DeputyMinister. Why is it necessary to transfer something to another Secretary, who does not bear any responsibility for the register? That is my difficulty.

Mr. Chairman, I have repeatedly told the hon. member that the population register is the responsibility of the Secretary forthe Interior. If that register forms a subdivision in his department, or whether it is in the Department of Bantu Administration, is not relevant here.

It is divided control.

For example, let us suppose that a person is classified as a Bantu, then, surely one must have the right to effect the alteration in respect of his birth registration as well.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, this again is a clause which stipulates different procedures that have to be followed in giving particulars about a Bantu person and a non-Bantu person to the Registrar. It deals particularly with investigations and inquiries as to the cause of death. I want to say merely for the purposes of the record that we again oppose this procedure. We do not think that it is necessary that there should be a variation in procedure. I will not carry the matter further than to record our objection to this particular clause.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, this clause was referred to in the Second Reading as a clause particularly required to deal with such deaths as may unfortunately occur among Police and military personnel who are involved in the defence of South Africa on our borders by way of unorthodox military operations and not conventional military operations. The clause gives the Secretary the power to prescribe the places, circumstances, manner and responsibility of individuals as far as the recording of particulars about death is concerned. It also gives him certain authority in regard to authorizing the removal of a body for burial.

One appreciates that in conventional warfare there are certain regulations which are applied and which form part of our code of military discipline. These have reference to the circumstances of conventional warfare. As far as the present operations are concerned, one appreciates that there must be different circumstances and conditions and perhaps conditions a little more stringent than they would be in the case of conventional warfare. What worries me is that there is no obligation on the Secretary to prescribe that there should be a medical certificate issued as to the cause of death. I do not wish to move an amendment to this clause because I realize that this is a matter which requires the consideration of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Defence, and the Department of Police. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will not give consideration to this requirement possibly before this Bill proceeds to the Other Place.

I suggest that a medical certificate should be issued because accidents can happen. There may be various causes of deaths which might take place in operations of this nature. I think that relatives at home would find it reassuring if they did know that the question of the certification of death is preceded by a medical certificate. There may be a need for burial on the spot. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not have any difficulties when it comes to the defence authorities and the Police authorities being able to assure him that medical officers would be available to certify death. It may well be the intention of the Secretary for the Interior to prescribe that such a certificate should be obtained, and I wonder whether this should not be written into the Bill as well. If one looks at the new section 17A (2), one notices that certain requirements are laid down to satisfy the district surgeon as to the cause of death particularly in the case of an unnatural death.

Do you want a medical certificate to be issued before he can be buried?

No, I am suggesting that, as in the case of an unnatural death in normal circumstances in civilian life, if there is a death as a result of these border activities of our Police and military personnel, a certificate should first of all be issued by the medical officer as to the cause of death. There is always a medical officer available. Secondly, it may well be in the purview of the commanding officer concerned, to say that the death occurred in the course of operations or whatever the case may be. It is merely a reassurance for the next-of-kin, but as I have said I do not wish to move an amendment at this stage. However, I do believe it is something which the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department should consider. They can possibly include in the regulations a provision that wherever it is possible or where a medical officer is available a certificate should be issued.

And if he is not available?

On every military operation, a medical officer is available and I think I have suggested already that this is a matter which the hon. the Deputy Minister should discuss with the Minister of Police and the Minister of Defence. I would be alarmed to think that a medical officer is not readily available to every one of our men who is serving either in the Police or in the military forces on or outside the borders of South Africa.

Smaller sections can become separated.

I am not asking that a medical officer should be there at the moment of death, but I am saying that a medical officer should be concerned with the issuing of a certificate of death. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will appreciate this point and I would like to know whether it could be considered and possibly dealt with at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I understand this request and it is a possibility which was considered by all of us. I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the Act as it reads at present. I am quoting from section 17-

I wonder whether the hon. member appreciates that, as the section of the existing Act reads, it is also wide open to abuse of the type he has in mind. I think the hon. member has in mind that there may be foul play, but in addition he has in mind that in respect of an accident where there is no foul play involved, the parents will also want to know what happened. I could differ a little with him where he said that this might be more important in conventional warfare and perhaps less important in the type of “war” in which we are involved now. I differ with him. I think we are in a much more difficult situation in the sense that we are involved in a war which has not been declared, and in the sense that it is still in progress. It is taking place under circumstances in which it is simply impossible to get all the various people together at the right place, so that exactly the same procedure may be followed as is done in the case of a natural death in the rural areas. As the Act reads at present, there is also a possibility that irregularities may take place, but there are checks and balances in this whole process. Where there is a military operation, there are many people who are aware of it. To put it this way: There are checks and balances. This clause will only be applied by the Secretary in exceptional cases and I want the hon. member to have regard to the fact that it has to be done in consultation with the military and police authorities. I may add that these people were consulted before we proceeded to this alteration.

In the last instance, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that, in cases where a medical certificate can be obtained, no stone will be left unturned in an attempt to get hold of it. In addition, in terms of the provision of the last part of the clause, a certificate reflect-ing the particulars must still be made available to the person who asks for it and who is concerned with it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a change of approach so far as this particular situation is concerned, when a deceased is not attended by a medical practitioner. Section 23 reads at the moment as follows—

In other words, if the registrar was not satisfied that the death was due to natural causes, he should report it to the magistrate. Now it seems to me that there is a change because the proposed section 23 (1) now reads as follows—

Then the proposed section 23 (2) reads as follows—

The position as it exists at the moment, is that if he is not satisfied he is obliged to do something and report to the magistrate for an inquiry. I wonder what the reason for this is. Has the Department run into problems with the question of what he should do if he is satisfied? The law as it is now. states that if he is satisfied he should take certain steps and the proposed amendment states that if he is not satisfied, he should take the same steps as he took before. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what has been the reason for this change of approach and whether there is any particular problem that has arisen in regard to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the law as it stands at the moment, is not clear as to what he should do in case he is satisfied. This position is cleared up in the amendment. It is also added that if he is not satisfied, he can still report it to the nearest magistrate.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 35:

Mr. Chairman, we have grave objections to this clause. Section 36, as it stands at the present moment, empowers the State President to make regulations. These are not normal administrative regulations. Section 36 (1), as approved by this House, reads as follows—

In other words, at the present moment the State President-in-Council has the right to amend this legislation by regulation. In effect this right empowers the State President to amend this legislation by making regulations prescribing special provisions, either in addition to or in substitution for the provisions of this Act. We on this side of the House have repeatedly said that we are opposed to government by regulation. The State President has that power, I am not arguing about him having that power. According to this Bill the hon. the Minister will have that power. The difference is quite clear, namely the substitution for the State President by the Minister. When the State President promulgates regulations he does so as the State President-in-Council. as the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. When the Minister makes regulations he does so as an individual Minister acting in the administration of his portfolio. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to every Minister of this Cabinet that this country is sick and tired of being told what to do by regulations, regulations which are promulgated and for which apologies appear later. We are tired of regulations which are promulgated and then it is suggested that they do not mean what they say and regulations which are promulgated and from which exemptions follow one after the other. We are also tired of regulations published under various Acts and are varied by different Ministers.

It is bad enough that the President-in-Council should be able to legislate for South Africa, as he can now do. We certainly do not support but oppose any suggestion that a Minister should have the power to legislate by proclamation and toy regulation in substitution for or in addition to the authority which had been agreed upon by Parliament in the passing of an Act. Under this clause the hon. the Minister, although he has had the support of his side of the House, for the proposal that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration shall have certain powers under this Act. can now, if he so desires, promulgate a regulation which can be in substitution of the provisions of this measure. He is also entitled, if he so wishes, to say that he does not need the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and his Department any more. He can do this in spite of this House having to-day approved of this provision. If this type of regulation is to be passed, which is in substitution for the provisions of an Act. then at least it should bear the full responsibility of the State President-in-Council, namely the collective responsibility of the Cabinet and not that of a single Minister. I do not want to lay at the door of this hon. Deputy Minister some of the regulations promulgated by hon. Ministers for which they have not been able to give us statistics to justify them. There have been an awful number of them and I do not want this hon.

Deputy Minister to think that we are laying the responsibility at his door. We would, however, like him in future, if other hon. Ministers produce that type of proclamation and have the sanction of the State President-in-Council, to realize that we will hammer him as well for the misdeeds of his colleagues. In this way his colleagues can also be hammered for his misdeeds. This is the type of proclamation that will be acceptable, but it is certainly not the type of proclamation that we wish to have. We therefore oppose this clause.

I really have nothing more to say. We have here a basic difference of opinion. The Cabinet usually decides what burden they want the State President to carry in so far as the making of regulations is concerned. Then they advise us in Parliament and then we decide in the end.

Why does not Parliament decide?

You decide here to-day. You have the right of discussion and decision. That is democracy, is it not? I am not talking about tendencies and all the rest of it, but I must point out to the hon. member that the sovereignty of Parliament is still intact, because if he looks at subsection (2), he will see these regulations must be tabled. It does not help saying that he does not know when these regulations are being tabled and discussed, etc. The point is that legally the machinery is there and he and any other hon. member can demand a discussion. I do not think I will say anything more about it than I have just said. The sovereignty of Parliament is still there in this case and he need not be worried about this tendency as long as this sovereignty of Parliament, which he and other hon. members are so worried about from time to time, is still being retained.

That is the most extraordinary proposition that has come from the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he is correct, then we should have a Cabinet which is in office to proclaim laws which become law on proclamation and then Parliament should sit merely to discuss these laws after they are laws. That is what he is saying. The sovereignty of Parliament is not protected by this House being asked to rubber-stamp a proclamation which has come from a Minister. That is what he is asking here.

The final court is the electorate.

After what the Deputy Minister said about the sovereignty of Parliament, does he really suggest that if he lays on the Table of this House a proclamation which he as a member of the Cabinet has published, there will be one peep from anybody on his side of the House criticizing that proclamation? No, there will not be one peep. There is little enough when we are discussing this Bill at the moment. But I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister, that Parliament has to be sovereign ab initio, but the Chairman will rule me out of order if I develop this argument.

Order!

I merely want to say that what I am concerned about is that il there is a power to make proclamations, it should not be in one man’s hands; it should be in the hands collectively of the Cabinet.

This is an endeavour to transfer responsibility to the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development and to protect him from responsibility, all in the same clause. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister the reasons for the changes which have taken place in this particular clause as regards responsibility. In line 54 it says—

It says “before” instead of “after” 1959. I take it that this administrative substitution took place on 31st December, 1959, when the Department of Bantu Administration started to register births. But then we go over to page 43 of the Bill and we come to an interesting provision where it says that the Secretary for Bantu Administration shall not be responsible in regard to a marriage solemnized before the said date between parties of whom the male was a Bantu unless he has received the register referred to in the preceding clause which we have dealt with. I want to ask the Deputy Minister this. Is the responsibility of the Department of Bantu Administration restricted now in so far as registration of marriages is concerned to such marriages when the male contracting party is a Bantu? Does it have no reference to a marriage in which the female is a Bantu and the male is a Coloured man? Because one wants to see now whether we are not getting to the fourth or fifth definition of what is a Bantu. When it comes to married Bantu, it is now going to be a marriage where the male is the Bantu and the female is of some other race, and not where the female is a Bantu and the male is of some other race. Is that now the intention? I ask this in view of the provisions which are now contained here and the provisions of a previous clause of this Bill which has been approved of, although we opposed it. It seems that the Bantu register will have reference only to marriages in which the male is a Bantu and to no other marriages whatever. I ask the Deputy Minister whether he can explain that.

This is not a practical change; this is merely a statutory adjustment, This is an amendment of the provisions as regards the issuing of certified extracts in respect of persons other than Bantu persons and in respect of persons who are non-Bantu. As has already been mentioned, the maintenance of local registers in respect of persons other than Bantu persons, has been abolished. Certificates in respect of such persons will only be issued at the head-office. The amendment of the proviso in subsection (1) will have no effect in practice, but merely clarifies the legal position. Subsection (2) now becomes redundant, subsection (3) is merely a consequential amendment while alternative proposals are made subsequently, but this does not have any bearing on what has been said by the hon. member.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—that the Bill be now read a Third Time.

We on this side of the House welcome this measure. It is a measure which will promote the establishment of fresh produce markets in the nine major centres of the Republic. This measure also provides for the establishment of a commission to advise the Minister in matters appertaining to the siting, the erection, the extension or, if necessary, alteration, the management and the operation of such fresh produce markets. One interesting point about this commission and something which I think will be welcomed by producers particularly is that the expenses of this commission will be met by the State, thus saving the producers extra expense in this connection.

Sir, the Bill also makes provision for financial assistance to the owners of such fresh produce markets, who need not necessarily be municipalities, but who in practice, I think, will be municipalities. The Bill does not define to what extent this assistance will be provided by the State; whether it will be in the form of an out-and-out grant or a guarantee against losses. The relevant clause of the Bill provides-

The memorandum which explains the provisions of this Bill says in the paragraph in which this question of financial assistance is discussed that there will be a grant equal to 5 per cent of the capital cost of the market for a period of two years from the date of commissioning the market. I think that all those municipalities which are interested in establishing these markets have in fact accepted that the State will provide this financial assistance whether there has been a loss or not. In other words, the important point is that the municipalities which are interested in establishing these markets want to know beforehand whether they can expect an out-and-out grant from the State of an amount of 5 per cent of the capital cost for a period of two years.

Sir, this is an interesting point because the Slater Commission which was set up to investigate the establishment of these municipal markets went into the question of the cost of establishing a national market very thoroughly and they came to the conclusion that these markets should be underwritten by the State up to the extent of a third of the actual cost of the market. Paragraph 112 of the Slater Committee’s report reads—

Sir, this is an important point, because we need these markets; they are an urgent necessity—

Sir, I will not go into that matter.

Order! I hope the hon. member is not going to make a Second Reading speech now. The Second Reading has been adopted already.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not he is prepared to indicate definitely that the grant, which has been indicated in the memorandum, will in fact be paid out to these municipalities when they undertake to erect these markets. I say this because if it is only a guarantee against losses, the effect of this legislation may well be to increase the time which is taken by these municipalities to get on with the job of providing these markets. I believe it is an important point and I believe that it will be in the interests of all if the Minister will make this particular point very clear, and because it is not clear in the Bill, we want to emphasize the importance of the effect of having an out-and-out grant as apposed to a guarantee against possible losses. I know for a fact that in the case of my municipality in Port Elizabeth they are awaiting the passing of this legislation. The moment they know that it has been passed and that they are going to get the grant, they are going to get on with the establishing of their market. I think it will be in the interests of all if we can have a clear statement in respect of this matter from the Minister.

Sir, for those of us who have for some considerable time been working for improved marketing conditions for both the producer and the consumer as far as perishable products on our markets are concerned, this is a red-letter day. I think I am speaking on behalf of a very large section of my constituency, if not on behalf of a large section of most constituencies in the Republic, in expressing our appreciation here for the interest and leadership which we have received in this connection. We accept that a considerable amount of preliminary study will have to be done. The question of the marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables is a very difficult problem, and therefore we eagerly look forward to the appointment of the commission, its chairman and other members.

Sir, please permit me to make a single remark in connection with the concept “national market”, which will relate especially to large urban areas. I hope and trust that this commission as well as the Minister will provide the necessary guidance and that we shall place the accent on distribution and control as far as quality is concerned. When I refer to distribution channels, I am referring especially to the non-white areas in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vanderbijlpark complex and Vereeniging, which, in my opinion should offer a tremendously important and very large market for fresh fruit and vegetables. We are all aware of the restrictive measures existing in this connection at the moment.

Then, in connection with the whole concept of a national market and the idea of decentralizing, I just want to mention for the hon. the Minister’s consideration the possibility of including smaller markets in such an area, and here I am referring especially to smaller places On the West Rand such as Krugersdorp and places such as Springs, Brakpan and other places on the East Rand, so that they will either form part of the central national market or be accepted and regarded as a separate subentity of it, even if only in the sense that they may form their own local advisory committees.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much more to say, except to express my appreciation for the initiative and courage displayed by the Department of Agriculture in this connection. We are looking forward with great interest to the fruitful work and positive results which will flow from this measure for our producers and consumers as far as fresh fruit in the Republic is concerned.

Sir, I should like to reply to the question of the hon. member for Walmer together with those of all the members of the House of Assembly from Pretoria who received letters from the Town Clerk of Pretoria. I can explain the position in this way as far as the entire Bill is concerned: In the past there was no State aid when a market was erected and showed a loss. But our intention with the Bill is not that a municipal market should now become a State undertaking. The municipal market is a business undertaking of the municipality; and after consultation with the Department of Agricultural Economics, the municipality determines its commission on such a basis that the market can show a profit; this is the point of departure. We should not proceed on the assumption that a municipal market is erected for the farmers alone. It is a service which the municipality renders to the inhabitants of the town, and at the same time it benefits the farmer who sells his product there.

Then the hon. member asked whether this assistance of 5 per cent would be granted whether the municipality showed a profit or not. It will be granted only if the municipality suffers a loss. Hon. members will understand that we cannot apply the proposal of he Slater Commission in practice, i.e. that the State should contribute one-third of the costs, because one will not know in advance for what amount one will be liable. The day before yesterday, representatives of most of the municipalities, who are attending a conference here in the city, as well as the Town Clerk of Pretoria came to see me. I explained the position to them and they were quite satisfied when they left, because I said to them: “Look, Johannesburg has already planned a municipal market costing more than R12 million at Kazerne: 5 per cent on the capital investment means R600,000; this is the assistance for which they will qualify if the Commission finds that the management of the market is in order and if they erected it after consultation with the Commission. If we give the assurance that a municipality will definitely get this money, it may build far too much cold-storage space or an unpractical market. After all, the Government cannot be held liable for a contribution to the capital investment if the local authority has made a mistake, but if the market is erected properly, after consultation with the Commission, they may rely on 5 per cent of the capital cost of the market for a period of two years. If we find that circumstances have changed, we may lengthen the period of two years.”

The whole purpose here is to render a service which did not exist in the past. This can include smaller markets. This is something that was mentioned by the hon. member for Rand-burg. Krugersdorp. for example, may perhaps already qualify for inclusion, in view of the growth in that vicinity. We have a commission which can investigate these matters and make recommendations. This is something we did not have in the past.

I may just tell the hon. members from Pretoria that I have replied to the letter from the Town Clerk of Pretoria about which they were so upset. In addition, I discussed the matter with the Town Clerk of Pretoria. He is quite satisfied. The hon. member for Walmer may also tell his people that there is no intention in this legislation to impose certain conditions on municipalities with the result that they may subsequently find that the market is no longer profitable. In this connection it will have to be investigated whether a higher commission should not be charged. We can use various ways and means to help the people. We want to be the friend of the municipality in this undertaking. The municipality is the right body for building a municipal market and our intention with this legislation is to help the people to erect the markets.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that we on this side of the House are satisfied to accept the Third Reading of this Bill. We are doing this because one of the main objects of this measure will be to set aside a certain portion of land in the Paarl Mountain area for the erection of the Afrikaans Language Monument. I believe it is fitting that this monument will be erected in Paarl, where so much of the Afrikaans language originated and where so many of the pioneers in the field of the Afrikaans language first made their mark in this Boland area. We on this side of the House should like to express the hope that when the monument has been completed one day, it will be the pride not only of the Afrikaans-speaking language group in South Africa, but also of the English-speaking population group in this country. As this legislation provides the basic requirement for that monument, namely the land, we of the United Party are glad that in the year 1970 we can give our blessing to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in this clause we have a departure from what has been accepted practice in the past. With regard to agricultural matters where the Minister has required advice, this has been given by a committee which is appointed for the particular magisterial district. This I think the hon. the Minister will agree has been the position in the past, not only in regard to this legislation but in regard to any legislation in which this hon. Minister is concerned. Now we have something new introduced here. The hon. the Minister is asking for the power to appoint a committee in respect of one or more magisterial districts, or even for portions of magisterial districts. It would appear that it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to divide each province into regions and to appoint committees for those various regions.

I am not going to say at this stage that I consider it to be a bad principle or a good principle. I should, however, like to hear a little bit more from the hon. the Minister in this connection. We would appreciate it if he could give us some indication as to why he wants to get away from the old system and how he is going to do it. As I foresee it, the hon. the Minister might take three or four magisterial districts and put them together under one committee. If it is a case where he will take three or four magisterial districts and put them together under the control of one committee, a question arises in view of the proposed amendment to subsection (2) (b). This subsection provides that “the other members shall be members appointed by the Minister, of whom at least two shall be persons resident in ‘a’ magisterial district”. The word “the” is deleted and substituted by the word “a”. In other words, if three magisterial districts are put together under one committee, all the hon. the Minister need do is to appoint two persons from one of those magisterial districts to serve on that committee. This would mean in effect that the other three magisterial districts would have no representation at all. Am I interpreting this correctly? Is this the intention of the hon. the Minister, and if so, could he tell us why. Has he had trouble with the credit committees he has had in the past? I should like to know the reason for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we do not want to apply this provision in the Republic at all. We do have a problem in South-West Africa, however, because it is such a vast territory. There are 18 magisterial districts in South-West Africa at present, and these people have to cover enormous distances. Where we now want to bring South-West Africa in under the Act, they already have certain other arrangements, for example, a committee which they call the Hardap Committee, and an emergency pasture committee which are fulfilling the functions of an agricultural credit committee. When one visits South-West Africa and sees the long distances in that territory, one can appreciate why it is necessary for practical purposes to divide a district into two parts, because we have found that the work can be performed more satisfactorily in that way. We may perhaps find subsequently that it is not necessary to do so. Perhaps we shall be able to do the work in the territory, as it is being done in the Republic, with only one committee per magisterial district. It is not our intention to have sub-committees or subdivisions of magisterial districts here in the Republic.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the story about the manpower shortage but I am sorry to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister has now confused me even more. The existing section 6 of the Act reads as follows:

1. (1) The Minister may establish a committee, to be known as an agricultural credit committee, for any magisterial district or portion thereof under the chairmanship of an officer in the department designated by the secretary …

As the law stands to-day this means that the Minister can appoint for any magisterial district one committee or a portion of it.

But you cannot appoint one committee for three magisterial districts.

No, the Minister cannot do that to-day. This is what he is asking for now. If I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly, he put it just the other way round. In the case of South-West Africa the Minister wants to have the power to be able to establish a committee for a portion of a district, that is more than one per district. The point I was making was that the hon. the Minister is asking for the power here to appoint one committee for more than one district and not more than one committee for a district.

It all depends.

This is what I am trying to find out. It all depends on a lot of things. Exactly which way are we going with regard to South-West Africa and with regard to the argument advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister? I accept wholeheartedly that because of the vast areas they have to cover, there is a necessity for more than one committee per magisterial district. I think the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister actually assists my argument. I fail to see the necessity in South-West Africa for the establishment of one committee to cover three magisterial districts. This makes the distances to be covered even more vast. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is correct when he says that it is not his intention to apply this provision to the Republic, then I cannot see the need for it. If it was to be applicable to the Republic and applied in some of the smaller magisterial districts, where there are few farmers, or if the hon. the Minister was having trouble to get farmers to serve on these committees, I could understand the reason for this amendment. I asked this question because I am at a loss to understand the reason for this amendment. As I have said, we will accept the necessity to give a magisterial district in South-West Africa more than one committee. Now, however, we are being asked to provide that the Minister may establish a committee to be known as an agricultural credit committee “for one or more magisterial districts or any portion of a magisterial district”. In other words, he is taking those extremes. Is this to be applied in the Republic and what is the reason for it?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that it will not happen in South Africa> I should like to quote to the hon. member from a document I have here:

That does not give the reasons.

I told you what the reasons were.

Mr. Chairman I am afraid that the hon. the Deputy Minister has still not given us a reason to justify the establishment of one committee for more than one magisterial district. He has also not yet answered my point in which I raised the question of two farmers resident in one magisterial district serving on that committee. If a committee is established for four magisterial districts, you could have the position where only one of those four magisterial districts would be represented on the committee. Is this fair to the other three magisterial districts? Does it necessarily mean that the persons representing one magisterial district will be au fait with the conditions that pertain in the other district which might be a hundred or more miles away. With all respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I want to say that these are the questions which remain unanswered. To be completely suspicious and completely extreme in this matter, is this done because the farmers have resisted serving on these agricultural credit committees?

Do not talk nonsense.

I am asking this in all fairness and in all seriousness. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister adopting that attitude. I am being completely responsible in this matter. I want to know and I feel that this Committee should know before it gives a decision on this particular clause. Has the hon. the Deputy Minister had trouble with agricultural credit committees? Has he been able to establish all the committees that should have been established? I am suggesting reasons because he cannot give me any reasons.

Mr. Chairman, this is so simple. One should not get hot under the collar, but if one has to deal with nonsense, one cannot help getting so in the end. The hon. member has been informed here in clear terms that we are dealing with South-West Africa where this Act was not applicable. South-West Africa has no agricultural credit committees. We had requests to the effect that South-West Africa should get only one committee to serve the entire territory, one which would be situated centrally in Windhoek. We said that would not work in practice. Now we are effecting an amendment which will empower us to use one committee for two, three or four magisterial districts, or, if necessary, to use one committee for half a magisterial district. I said so a moment ago, but the hon. member said I did not reply to him.

What is the reason for that?

The reason for that is to make it work in practice. Then the hon. member asked whether the reason was that we could not get farmers to serve on the committees. We are always getting some insinuation and suspicion from that side.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that we welcome this amendment and particularly the amendment contained in clause 5 (a) which makes provision for dwellings for non-white farm labourers. There is just one little question i should like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is something I think he should perhaps consider when he takes this Bill to the Other Place. The Afrikaans version. of the Bill is correct but in line 58 of the English version the word “direction” appears I wonder whether that word could not be changed to “directive’ to make the English version correct?

Mr. Chairman, we will have a look at the wording of this clause and, if we find it necessary, we will rectify it in the Other Place.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance in that there is a point which I would like to make about the amendments in this Bill and I think this is the correct time to make it. Here we have the insertion of the words “or, in the case of a company, the company has been placed in liquidation”. Clause 1 (c), which has been approved of by this Committee, gives the following definition—

That is the first indication we had in this Bill that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is now going to deal with companies as well as individual persons. In terms of the Interpretation Act a company is a person. Therefore in every instance where a person is referred to in this Bill it can be read as “company”. I know it has been the policy of the Minister not to lend money to the companies up till now. Now, because of this amendment (as I have said, this is the first occasion which we have had to discuss this), it has become apparent that this Department is now departing from that policy and is prepared to lend money to companies which are farming.

Do you not know that we changed the Act last year?

Was the Act changed last year to specifically include companies?

It was done only for three purposes: Soil conservation fodder or credit. We changed the Act last year.

And this one?

This is only to ensure that you get your money back when it has been lent to a company.

I know this is to ensure that he gets his money back. This is quite right, but I still make the point that we now have the position that money is being lent to companies.

Mr. Chairman, father/son companies or private companies that are meritorious cases qualify for assistance in respect of fodder, etc. Last year provision was made for that. That was done in pursuance of representations we had received from farmers farming in companies in which they asked whether they could not qualify for assistance as well. What is the hon. member’s question? If his question is whether companies may qualify henceforth, my reply is in the affirmative.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In view of the fact that the Agricultural Pests Act is one of the laws on which the prosperity of our country’s agronomy and grazing and horticultural crops, rests to a large extent, it is important for us to make certain adjustments from time to time. So it was in the present case as a result of certain developments, and I trust that I shall have the support of this House in this connection. I should like to explain briefly why the amendments are being effected.

Customs and police officers have been performing duties in terms of the Agricultural Pests Act at certain remote border control posts for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in the past, as it is impossible to have an officer or a plant inspector available at each of these posts as well. Customs and: police officers at these posts are kept informed of what plants may not enter the country without valid permits, and therefore they are rendering a valuable service for which I should like to thank them. These border control officers are now being duly empowered by this amendment to the Act to fulfil these duties. At the larger centres such as harbours and international airports, the staff of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will still perform the inspection duties.

It is now being provided that plants imported in contravention of the provisions of this Act, may be dispatched to another country, including the country of origin, if the consignee so prefers. This provision is already being applied administratively in cases where valuable plants are involved and the consignee insists on this being done. As the Act reads at present, such plants have to be destroyed. It is the intention that the provisions should apply also in cases where an imported plant arrives here in an infected condition, and it is decided to disinfect or cleanse it in case it may transmit disease, but the disinfection or cleansing cannot be carried out properly for some technical reason.

With the recent alleged illegal importation of banana plants which were infected with eel-worm, and the exceptionally big threat of disease this constitutes to horticultural and agronomical crops, it became clear that certain adjustments to section 17 were urgently required. At the moment the Act provides that in cases where plants are destroyed because it is infected with a disease, irrespective of whether or not the infected plant were smuggled into the country, compensation has to be paid to the owner of the plants so destroyed. This state of affairs cannot be tolerated, however, and the time has arrived for people who are unscrupulous in this regard to forefeit compensation of any nature. As plants which are in contact with or come into contact with such infected plants which were imported illegally, may also create a threat of disease, it is equally important that these should not be disregarded and that compensation should be withheld in such cases as well. I can only trust that this measure will deter persons from smuggling infected plants into the country which may constitute a major threat to the country.

The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is obliged by law to provide poisons free of charge in all cases for the eradication of weetganger locusts. Pressure is being excercised on the Department to an ever-increasing extent to make poison available for small swarms of insignificant proportions or in cases where the locusts are so thinly scattered that it simply is not justified economically to provide poison in such cases. In terms of the new provision, the Department itself will be able to decide when it is necessary to provide poison and in this way it will be possible to exercise better control over the issuing of poison. Where concentrations of locusts are such that they can, in fact, be combated practically and economically, it will be done just as in the past and no change in the present policy is being envisaged at all.

Further amendments which are being effected, are chiefly of an administrative nature and are intended to make the implementation of the Act more streamlined. All interested persons and bodies, for example, the South African Agricultural Union, with whom the Bill was discussed, approve of these measures.

I hope these measures will have the approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has outlined to us the background which gave rise to the proposal of this Bill by the Department. I think it was a tremendous shock to all of us when we learnt some time ago about the infected banana plants which had entered South Africa. These banana plants were infected with eel-worm. I think our country, and especially the banana industry in Natal, is exceptionally fortunate that a tremendous outbreak of this disease did not occur as a result of the infected plants which had entered the country. I think the Department can be congratulated on its quick action in this regard, and also on the fact that a thorough investigation was conducted into this matter.

The hon. the Minister has just said that in terms of this legislation, further powers are being given to the customs officers to take action in cases where they suspect that such plants are entering the country. As regards this question of pests, we on this side of this House are just as serious as the hon. the Minister to protect our agricultural industry as far as possible. Although this may sometimes sound drastic to people who do not know the circumstances, we are nevertheless prepared to give powers to the hon. the Minister as well as to other people so that they may act rapidly and effectively.

Unless rapid and effective action is taken, an outbreak of one of the most dangerous diseases may occur among our plants before one knows what is happening. To undo that damage because rapid action was not taken in the first place, is a risk which, in my opinion, should not be taken under any circumstances. Therefore we on this side of this House are satisfied with this Bill and we are prepared to support it, just as it was supported in the Other Place.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The protection of our country’s livestock from diseases may be regarded to-day as one of the most important tasks of the Department of Agricultural and Technical Services and particularly of the Veterinary Division. In this respect a very large responsibility is resting on we and on the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

The amendments to the Act which I am submitting to this House to-day, simply constitute an extension of the amendments I submitted to this House last year.

Because of the modern means of transport which are available to-day and our national borders which extend over thousands of kilometers, the smuggling in of animals, eggs and other animal products has become a serious problem and the threat of disease which these smuggled animals, eggs, etc., constitute to our country, is not always fully realized. South Africa is in the fortunate position that it is free of many animal diseases which cause great problems in other countries. We should very much like to preserve our present position, but the battle against smugglers is becoming increasingly difficult. Therefore I feel at liberty to submit further legislation to this House which I should like to explain as follows:

Clause 1.

The definition of “progeny” is being extended so as to put it beyond any doubt that it is intended to include all progeny or descendants ad infinitum and that it is not limited to a certain generation only.

Clause 2.

In recent court judgements it was held that the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act, 1956, as amended, was subject to the audi alteram partem rule, which means that before any action may be taken in terms of this Act, in a way which affects a person’s interests, he must first be afforded the opportunity of putting his case before his interests are affected. The court accordingly made certain directions in this respect which the Minister has to follow in future.

This court ruling placed me and my officials in an almost impossible and unenviable position as regards the proper implementation of this Act. What this will amount to in practice is that every time smugglers are caught or charged, they should first be given a reasonable time in which to put their case. The same position will arise when stock wander across the border from neighbouring states. At present such stock are immediately shot dead in order to prevent the possible infection of other animals, which according to the court ruling is no longer the correct course of action.

If the course of action prescribed by the court were to be put into effect, it would mean that a risk would be taken every time smuggled stock are being held until the audi alteram partem rule to which I have referred, is applied, which in itself can be a protracted procedure. During this time, a dangerous disease such as foot-and-mouth disease or Newcastle disease may become rampant and infect our livestock.

I make bold to say that I believe the farmers of the country cannot expect me to protect the livestock of the country to the best of my ability, unless I have the power to act as quickly as was done in the past.

Therefore I am asking this House for this power to-day, not to abuse it, but in order to act against unscrupulous people who are prepared to take chances for the sake of personal gain, to the detriment of the health of our country’s livestock and our farmers’ economy.

In regard to the second part of the clause under discussion, it is the intention to espect of suspected offenders to prove that the presumptions on which action has been taken against them, are false.

I am asking for these powers because the onus of proof, when an article such as eggs is concerned, becomes almost impossible because virtually all eggs look alike. I believe it is no more than right that the State should have the right to cause suspected offenders to prove the facts which they can furnish with utmost facility and expediency—proof which it sometimes is very difficult for the State to obtain.

Finally you will notice that this Bill seeks to make certain sections of retrospective effect. This is being done on the advice of the law advisers in the light of certain actions from that date in connection with which I unfortunately cannot divulge any details at this stage.

The Bill was discussed with the South African Agricultural Union and some of its affiliations and it has their full support.

Therefore I want to appeal to hon. members to support me in this matter which is of great importance and gravity to us all.

This Bill is almost similar to the Bill with which we have just dealt, as far as the intention of this legislation is concerned. This is, of course, to protect our livestock in South Africa from people who may bring in livestock that may be infected. When the hon. the Minister introduced an amending Bill in this regard last year, we supported him. We on this side of the House are not prepared to withhold that support now.

We appreciate, especially as far as clause 2 is concerned, that there are certain problems in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. Whether this is the case, I am not quite sure. If this is the case, however, I want to tell the hon. Minister that the sooner he can use these powers, the better it will be. It is for the simple reason that we in South Africa have repeatedly experienced that we suffer major losses as a result of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, not only in the Republic, but also in South-West Africa. If the hon. the Minister needs this provision, and especially those contained in clause 2, so that this problem may be combated, we on this side of the House are prepared to support the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreeed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The increasing use of chemical remedies for combating diseases and pests, particularly those remedies which are relatively stable and do not break up easily and may therefore accumulate in the soil and water, in many cases constitutes a threat to the health of man, animal and plant. To-day man is polluting his whole environment to such an extent that his continued existence is being threatened by that pollution. Consequently many countries are taking special steps to protect themselves from poisoning by harmful remedies by prohibiting or limiting the use of certain insecticides. The high level which agricultural production has reached in the developed countries to-day, so that sufficient food is available to the growing populations, can largely be attributed to the use of effective remedies for combating diseases and pests. Our agricultural industry, too, will not be able to do without the use of these remedies. However, I may give hon. members the assurance that the Government is fully aware of the threat which certain remedies may constitute. For example, a few years ago a Committee of Inquiry into the Safeguarding of Man against Poisons was appointed. As a result of the report of the Committee an interdepartmental advisory committee of experts from the Departments of Health and Agricultural Technical Services was appointed to make a continuous evaluation of remedies and to make specific recommendations when my department has to consider a new remedy for registration or an existing remedy for re-registration. It is also the task of the advisory committee to classify remedies according to their toxicity and to divide them into groups so that particular attention may be given to matters such as the labelling, the sale and use of such remedies. In this way, for example, the sign of the “scull and cross bones” on the label of a highly poisonous remedy warns the user at a glance to handle and use that remedy with great care. This advisory committee made a recommendation to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services to the effect that certain amendments to the existing Fertilizers, Farm Feeds and Remedies Act had become essential. I want to explain to hon. members in brief the most important amendments which are now being proposed.

Because there is such a big difference in remedies intended for plants and animals, definitions of “agricultural remedy” and “stock remedy” are being substituted for the definition “remedy”. This will help considerably in simplifying the various requirements which have to be prescribed as well as the registration of these remedies. The other definitions contained in clause 1 are mainly adjustments.

When the present Act was passed by Parliament in 1947. the legislator could not have foreseen that within a relatively short period of time such a tremendous technological development would take place and that so many new remedies would come on the market, some of which would constitute a threat to human health. The Act provides, inter alia, “if a remedy is suitable and sufficiently effective for the purposes for which it is intended” it has to be registered. This means that a remedy which is effective for combating a certain pest, has to be registered irrespective of its toxicity and its harmful effect on the health of mankind. You will agree with me that we cannot go on in this way. However, I want to make an appeal to all users of remedies, particularly remedies which are poisonous, to apply them very cautiously and judiciously and to pay full attention to the directions for use and any warnings on the labels. When a poisonous substance has been in use for years, one is inclined to become careless later on and not to take the necessary precautions any more, particularly where that substance is handled by unskilled labour.

Because of the threat poisonous substances constitute to humanity, import countries will lay down more and more strict requirements as far as poisonous residues on fruit are concerned, and it is important for our farmers to comply strictly with the recommended spraying programme. Fortunately, intensive research is being done in all countries to-day with a to finding remedies which are less harmful to man and animal. Particular attention is also being paid to the biological control of insects.

In terms of the amendment to section 3, the registration or re-registration of a remedy may now be refused if the use thereof constitute a real threat and if it is considered contrary to the public interest. I may give hon. members the assurance, however, that the registration or re-registration of a remedy, farm feed or fertilizer will not be refused in an arbitrary way. In every case the registration official will give very thorough consideration to the technical evidence of the inter-departmental advisory committee, which consists of experts. In the registration of farm feeds another very important aspect crops up, i.e. drugs which are harmful to man and may reach him via the animal, for example, through its milk and meat. Antibiotics, for example, are implicated in this matter, because if an antibiotic is administered to animals, people using the animal products may build up a resistance or allergies to the particular antibiotic. In the United Kingdom a thorough investigation has just been conducted into the harmful effect the injudicious administering of antibiotics to animals may have on man. As these remedies which are registered for veterinary use are freely available, it is important to impose the necessary control also on the acquisition and administration of these remedies. The amendment to section 23 (Clause 13) makes provision for this. Where the prescription of a veterinarian is required, however, the Act will be applied selectively, because I am aware of the shortage of veterinarians. State veterinarians will, however, give farmers the necessary guidance with regard to stock remedies which may be affected by any prohibition of the Act. It will also enable veterinarians to inform farmers more effectively on the application of effective disease prevention measures, through which the health of our livestock will benefit a great deal. It is in the public interest, however, that veterinarians should exercise greater control over the use of stock remedies which may be detrimental to the health of man. This matter will certainly have to enjoy further attention in future.

Further amendments to the Act are mainly of an administrative nature and are meant to overcome problems which arise in the implementation of the Act. The Bill is acceptable to the South African Agricultural Union and other interested bodies and persons with whom it was discussed. I trust that it will also enjoy the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the case that the legislation whichis under discussion now, has in recent times already had effects which have made it extremely necessary for us to pass legislation in this connection. It is particularly necessary to do so because of the fantastic amount of stock and agricultural remedies on the market to-day, and also because of cases of death and serious injury which have often resulted after some of these remedies were taken by young people and farm labourers, and even by farm managers. I think it is an accepted fact that Coloured and Bantu children, particularly in our fruitgrowing regions, eat fruit every year which has been sprayed with certain agricultural remedies. Before it is possible for a doctor or anyone else to arrive, these people die as a result of having taken these remedies. It is therefore not only dangerous but also extremely necessary that these remedies be properly controlled. The hon. the Minister therefore warns people to exercise care in using them, and I want to associate myself with this. As the hon. the Minister is, by means of this legislation, seeking the control of these remedies and making a distinction between an agricultural and a stock remedy, we on this side shall give him our strongest support. In recent times it has also become very clear that it is not at all such a good thing for the human body to take in some agricultural remedies. I think it is also in the interests of the public health of South Africa for this measure to be placed on the Statute Book. Agricultural remedies and stock remedies have changed enormously in the course of time, and in this process have become very expensive to the farmer. At the same time, however, many of these remedies are more effective to-day, but the hon. the Minister, of course, has no say in this matter. We shall be able to effect a considerable saving for the agricultural industry if we see to it that proper control exists with regard to the application of these remedies so as to eliminate carelessness and with a view to use these remedies sparingly.

Because this Bill is, as I have said, in the interests of the public health in South Africa, in the interests of our animals and for the protection of our fruit industry in particular, we are prepared to support this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

With the introduction of this Bill the last stage has new been reached in giving effect to the decision of the Government either to convert into permanent legislation or to delete all remaining war measures promulgated during World War II and perpetuated from time to time by means of renewal legislation.

Hon. members will recall that this measure was first introduced in Parliament during 1968. However, it was not taken any further at that time, mainly as a result of a request made to my predecessor by the Federated Chamber of Industries to make a further study of the matter. Arising from this, a number of discussions were held with my Department and a few amendments, to which I shall refer in the course of my speech, were effected to the original draft. Organized industry intimated its agreement and satisfaction with these amendments, and I can therefore tell this House that the Bill which is under consideration now, is an agreed measure as far as organized industry is concerned.

The Bill embodies the existing parts, with adjustments and deletions, of War Measure No. 146 of 1942. This is the only remaining war measure and it is being administered by my Department of Industries. This measure will expire on 30th June next year, unless, as in the past it is extended for another three years or converted into permanent legislation. It deals exclusively with internal commodity control and the administration of the External Procurements Fund, or, as it is now called in the Bill, the National Supplies Procurement Fund.

The measure before this House does not, in fact, go any further than the existing war measure, and I want to express the hope that in the light of prevailing world conditions hon. members will realize that the authorizations already contained in the existing legislation are, under certain circumstances, indispensable to any Government’s endeavours to combat certain situations as effectively as possible.

As hon. members all know, less serious situations prevail at present which render the application of certain measures essential. To-day we can no longer rely on the possibility that we shall be able to import our necessities under all circumstances, Consequently we must take specific steps to ensure that our inland production will not be disrupted unexpectedly and that we shall have reasonable supplies of essential goods which we cannot produce or manufacture ourselves. Therefore, the only thing this Bill seeks to do, is to convert into proper legislation powers which have existed for the past 26 years. In short, what the existing powers which are being included in this proposed legislation amount to, is that the Government may, in these special circumstances—circumstances over which it has no control—proceed to take the necessary steps to make the country economically strong as far as possible, and, in this process, to enable it to obtain goods or services and to pay for them. Coupled to this, the existence of the External Procurements Fund, or as I have just said, the National Supplies Procurement Fund, is consequently being continued.

In general the provisions of the proposed measure are clear and obvious, and at this stage I shall therefore refer only briefly to the most important authorizations which are being retained in the measure. These authorizations are contained in clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12.

Clause 2 contains the existing authorizations in terms of which the Minister of Economic Affairs may manufacture, produce, acquire, import, hire or supply goods for the Government or on behalf of someone else, or direct someone else to take such steps. His existing powers in terms of which he may take steps in connection with the acquisition, renting, hiring or supply of services. In this connection I should like to refer to our experience with the Government’s present storage programme. In general we have had fine co-operation from the vast majority of undertakings, and there have been few cases which required drastic persuasion. However, no one knows whether circumstances may not develop unexpectedly which may require more than just friendly persuasion, and without the continuation of these powers it is possible that the Government will find itself in an embarrassing or even powerless position.

Now I also have to say that where it is expected of private undertakings to take considerable additional financial burdens on themselves in carrying out a programme for making the country economically strong, it is no more than right that these burdens should be borne wholly or partially by the State. Consequently the measure is making ample provision, as is the case at present, for the State to continue assisting and accommodating undertakings financially out of funds in the National Supplies Procurement Fund, as set out in clause 12.

At the same time the existing powers to exercise control also over the production, utilization, disposal and purchase or otherwise of goods or services, supplementary to those of procurement, etc., are being retained in clause 2. I believe it is hardly necessary to enlarge on the necessity of continuing these powers. All of us sitting here to-day, or most of us anyway, will still remember how vital it was during World War II and immediately afterwards to exercise control over supplies.

Next I want to deal briefly with the provisions of clause 3. Steps in terms of this clause, together with clauses 4 and 5, will as in the past and from the nature of the case only be taken in extremely serious circumstances when there is no other way out. In terms of these three clauses the Minister of Economic Affairs is retaining the power—

1. (a) to demand goods or services at fair compensation to the owner or supplier thereof;
2. (b) to seize goods or to command services —again only at fair compensation, and only if a person or organization deliberately refuses or fails to comply with an order or a request to supply or deliver required goods or services; and
3. (c) to confiscate goods illegally acquired or to order the suspension of services illegally supplied or delivered. In this case the goods concerned or the facilities used for the supply of any service may be dealt with at the discretion of the Minister, but the person or organization concerned has the right to prove within 14 days after such confiscation that he or it has not been acting illegally.

Hon. members will realize that the application of the rest of this measure may to a great extent be virtually unenforceable without the retention of these powers. It is to be hoped that these powers, as in the past, will remain nothing more than a deterrent which need seldom, if ever, be used. While, in the present circumstances, I consequently do not foresee that the necessity will arise for the application of these powers, hon. members may ask why, in that case, they should be retained, and why these powers could not be asked for again if the necessity for them should arise. In that case I have to point out, however, that because no one can foretell the future such a necessity might well arise at some time or other when Parliament is in recess, and by the time the necessary powers could again be placed oh the Statute Book at the following session, so much damage might have been done that one might not be able to repair much of it.

So as to leave no doubt about the Government’s intention to apply this legislation only when it is forced to do so by circumstances, the introductory wording of clause 3, as in the case of clause 2, has been adopted in consultation with the Federated Chamber of Industries.

In the normal application of a measure such as this, it is necessary from time to time to demand information in connection with production, supplies in stock, etc. In the past it was necessary to apply pressure in exceptional cases, where the body or person concerned did not voluntarily want to supply certain information for official purposes. Therefore the existing powers in this regard are being retained, as set out in clause 6. As in the past, however, the Minister or any official charged with the implementation of this measure in some aspect or other, is compelled to secrecy in terms of clause 8 of the measure. Such a provision is no more than fair in the interests of the undertaking concerned, and the necessity for secrecy is therefore obvious.

With the exception of clause 12, in terms of which the existing External Procurements Fund will continue to exist under the new name of “National Supplies Procurement Fund”, I believe the other provisions of the measure actually require no explanation.

In connection with the National Supplies Procurement Fund, a change in its present form and administration is being made in one respect only. In clause 12 (1) (a) it is being provided that the balances in the Administration Account and the Trading Account of the present External Procurements Fund will, at the closing of this Fund, be paid into the new National Supplies Procurement Fund. This Fund, under its new name, will not. as the present Fund, be divided into an Administration Account and a Trading Account. The reasons for this are. firstly, that such a division of the Fund, in fact, simply creates all kinds of administrative and accounting problems. Secondly, it was the intention in the forties, when the External Procurements Fund was established, that the Fund was to function completely separate and on business lines. So, for example, the Fund itself, in terms of the provisions of existing War Measures, has to rent and pay for its own offices, see to its own office furniture and other equipment, even pay the salaries of its officials, etc. Since those years, however, government administration has undergone quite a number of changes and has become more extensive. Circumstances have gradually resulted in the activities of the Fund being integrated more and more with government machinery, i.e. the former Department of Commerce and Industries and now the Department of Industries. All officers at present charged with the administration and control of the Fund, are full-fledged government officers, the offices and office equipment are supplied by the State, etc. Under the new dispensation there is consequently very little reason for continuing the maintenance of an Administration Account out of which salaries and other administrative expenses are to be paid, and a Trading Account out of which purchases and so forth are to be financed.

For the rest the provisions of the existing War Measures which Parliament approved in 1966 and 1968 by means of suitable sections in the Finance Acts of those years with regard to the utilization, inter alia, of Exchequer funds which may be available from time to time, have been retained for the purposes of the E.P.F. This is contributing to the position that the overdraft facilities on which the External Procurements Fund, at present the National Supplies Procurement Fund, is operating at the South African Reserve Bank, will need to be used to a far lesser extent.

In addition provision is being made for the retention of existing fines and penalties.

Before concluding, I just want to make one or two remarks about the short title of the Bill. Subsection (2) was added in consultation with the Federated Chamber of Industries. The implication of this is obvious, and this relates particularly to the putting into operation of clauses 2 (a) (i), 2 (b), 2 (c) and 3. Hon. members will notice that these provisions deal with particularly the production and manufacture of goods, whether by the Government itself or by private undertakings by order of the Minister of Economic Affairs. Although it has never been the intention to apply these proposed statutory provisions arbitrarily. the short title has been supplemented by subsection (2) so as to reflect in the Bill absolute clarity as to the Government’s standpoint in this regard.

I want to express the hope that this House has gained a reasonable understanding of and insight into the nature and scope of this measure. At the same time I trust that hon. members will realize that this measure is presented to Parliament in order to continue the sincere and serious. endeavours of the Government to ensure the security of the country in the economic sphere as far as possible.

This is a very interesting Bill. In some respects I think one might even say it is an historical Bill, because what this Bill does, among other things, is to remove from the Statute Book certain war measures which were temporary measures and which we have kept as our laws from year to year, and it. now transcribes these war measures into permanent legislation. But the interesting thing about the war measures is this, that they were passed in a time of war and the hon. members opposite voted against those war measures. They were adamant that those war measures should not be passed, and yet they come to-day, in time of peace, and ask us to put these measures on the Statute Book as part of the permanent laws of the Republic. But we are going to agree, because we have always had a sense of responsibility. Unfortunately, when the war measures were debated …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir. I think it is very important that we should give our reasons for supporting this Bill. We support it because we believe that these measures are necessary in the interest and the safety and security of the Republic. Now this Bill is very similar to a Bill, as the hon. the Minister has said, that we had before us some time ago. It is a Bill which gives very wide powers indeed and at the time the original Bill was introduced we and certain other sectors of the community felt that the powers were too wide. Now there have been two fundamental changes in the Bill. The first is that the provisions of clause 2, “whenever the Minister deems it necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic”, have been included in clause 3 of the Bill; so now the provisions of clause 3 which give the Minister the right to control or demand services mean that he can only do so when it is necessary or expedient for the security of the Republic. We hope that these clauses will only be used in cases of dire necessity.

We are not altogether happy about clauses 6 and 7. Clause 6 gives the Minister very wide powers to obtain information, and clause 7 gives him the right of entry to premises to check that information or to obtain additional information, but the provisos of clauses 2 and 3, that it should be necessary or expedient for the safety of the Republic, do not apply to clauses 6 and 7. The Minister has the right at any time, irrespective of the circumstances, to use the rights and powers he is given under clauses 6 and 7. We hope that the Minister will use the rights he is given under these two clauses very carefully and cautiously and after a great deal of thought.

There is another important amendment in the Bill which the hon. the Minister mentioned, and that is in clause 24 There are certain provisions of this Bill which, by virtue of the fact that they replace existing war measures, must come into effect immediately such as the National Supplies Procurement Fund. We have to have that fund and as soon as this Bill becomes law the provisions of that clause must come into effect immediately. Therefore clause 24 provides that parts of the Bill m?y come into effect by proclamation on a date to be fixed by the State President and we can have different dates for different sections or subsections. This is important because the provisions of clauses 2 and 3 will not become law until they are proclaimed. It is because of the changes in clause 3 and those in clause 24 that organized industry has lent its approval to the Bill. They, like we, want to play their part in securing the safety of the State. It is a Bill one does not like. One must be frank about it. I am sure the hon. the Minister does not like to have to take these powers, but sometimes things have to be done which on does not like to do in the interests of the general security of the public, and therefore we support this Bill.

I do not want to take up the time of this House. We want to express our gratitude to the Opposition for supporting this Bill, but at the same time I should like to refer to one argument which the hon. member for Parktown used, i.e. that these war measures are being substituted while we are not at war. The fact of the matter is, of course, that wars are no longer being declared. The war in the Middle East has never been declared and the war in Vietnam has never been declared, and on the northern borders of our country there are terrorist activities, which are tantamount to war. but war has never been declared, and therefore, of course, it suits us to be in a state of readiness at all times.

Then that should have been the case during the war as well.

Therefore I should just like to draw the attention to the fact that it suits us to place an Act such as this on the Statute Book, because in a certain sense we should also be prepared for war, although not a declared war.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is very short and it is actually self-explanatory. It makes provision for regulations to be issued for the establishment, management Bind control of funds to provide for medical, dental and hospital treatment of members 6f the Force who have retired or retire on pension, and their families and of the families of members of the Force who have died. I want to draw attention to the fact that the important amendment which is being made here, is contained in the word “funds”, in the plural, as opposed to the existing section, where the word appears in the singular.

I should just like to say a few words in explanation of the background and history of the Bill now before this House. In 1964 there was a Bill before this House which made provision for the establishment of a fund for the purposes to which I referred a moment ago. When the regulations were issued and the fund created, it was necessary for various reasons to establish it in such a way that only those persons who retired from service after 1st January, 1964, would qualify for benefits under the fund. As I have said, this was done for various reasons, which I do not want to elaborate on now, but it caused a large measure of dissatisfaction, in spite of the good reasons which existed. Many hon. members of this House have probably received the complaint from time to time from ex-members of the S.A. Police that they were dissatisfied because they were not included in this fund as they had retired before 1st January, 1964. After careful consideration, it was felt then that provision should be made in some or other way for the needs of these ex-members of the S.A. Police, and therefore we are introducing this amending Bill to-day which makes provision for “funds”, while the previous Act made provision for one fund only. It is proposed that provision will be made for a B fund by way of regulation. The existing fund will be called the A fund, and the B fund will make provision for medical, dental and hospital treatment also for members of the Force who retired before 1st January, 1964.

This Bill, of course, has the wholehearted support of this side of the House. Indeed one wondered why at the time in 1964 those persons who retired before the 1st January, 1964, were excluded from the benefits which could be provided by regulation. We are delighted to find that the State President may now make regulations to provide for persons who retired or died before the 1st January, 1964, and for their relatives. Sir, the hon. the Minister is quite right; I think all of us have had these complaints from members of the Force who retired before the 1st January, 1964, and indeed their lot, I would say, is an even harder one than the lot of those who retired after 1964, simply for the reason that they are older, their medical bills are greater and their family responsibilities are harder to meet. We are therefore delighted with this measure and we hope that the regulations will be published fairly soon after the promulgation of the Act.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

I just want to explain why this amendment is being made. Representations were received from the Federated Chamber of Industries in connection with this clause. The Federated Chamber of Industries felt that the provisions of the clause as it reads at present are too wide, especially in so far as they relate to other functions and tasks, as stated in this clause. The Federated Chamber of Industries were of the opinion that the Bureau could probably be used for other purposes which one did not see in that to-day. This was not at all the intention of the Department. In actual fact, we framed the clause rather widely because we thought that we might perhaps use the Bureau for other purposes at some future stage and that it would then not be necessary to amend the Act. But under the circumstances I am quite prepared to meet the representations of the Federated Chamber of Industries and therefore we are being much more specific in this clause now.

We are grateful to the hon. the Minister that he has accepted this amendment. It narrows down the scope of the clause. It is what industry wanted and I think everybody will now be satisfied.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

This clause amends section 3 of Act 30 of 1965. Paragraph (e) of subsection (1), as amended here, gives the Minister power to exempt from any or all the provisions of this Act any agreements under which the seller is the Bantu Investment Corporation of South Africa Limited, referred to in section 2 of the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act, or the Coloured Development Corporation Limited, referred to in section 2 of the Coloured Development Corporation Act. Sir, I want to deal with the Bantu Investment Corporation. When the present Act was passed, I was under the impression that this relief would be given to the Bantu Investment Corporation, which was an investing company to provide the wherewithal to Bantu companies to start their own businesses, that is to say, to finance Bantu businesses. I was under the impression that these businesses would have this relief that the Hire-purchase Act would not apply with its stringent conditions. I want to point out that the Xhosa Development Corporation is also mentioned in the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act, as being one of the corporations concerned. This is quite a different corporation. In fact, it deals with the public. It owns garages, amongst other things, and private businesses which are in competition with the Corporation already complain that it has certain advantages over them. If the hon. the Minister is to be given power to exempt it from the provisions of the Hire-Purchase Act, it will mean that it can give special terms when selling on credit. This its competitors cannot do. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has given this matter any consideration. The Xhosa Development Corporation does not only deal with Bantu. It deals with white and Coloured people as well. It sells to anybody. In fact, its garages sell cars to anybody. It is in competition with other white-owned garages at the moment. This I submit is going to be most unfair. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what he in fact envisages. What does he intend doing with the power he is given now. How does he intend applying it to the Corporation?

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member anticipates is essentially correct. It is, in fact, being stated in such general terms in this Bill because it is being envisaged that other corporations may be established in future to which exemption will have to be granted from the Hire Purchase Act. Obviously, the circumstances are of such a nature that this cannot be applied only to one group of the Bantu. A different corporation may be established which will also have to be granted exemption. I have in mind now a corporation in a territorial authority other than that of the Xhosas. These corporations are being exempted because the Bantu, owing to their financial circumstances, are not in a position to comply with all the provisions of the Hire Purchase Act as they apply to Whites. If the hon. member has a problem because the corporation, referred to by him, competes with ordinary business undertakings by virtue of the fact that it deals with both Bantu and white persons, it is a matter which I shall give my attention to. Perhaps something could be done about it in the Other Place. However, I do not want to make any promises in that connection at present. The object of the legislation is clear, namely that the Bantu Corporation should not be subject to the stringent provisions of the Hire Purchase Act. The reason for it is that these corporations are dealing with Bantu.

When the 1965 Bill was passed all we envisaged then was that the Bantu Investment Corporation would assist Bantu businesses to come into being. Although it does trading, the Xhosa Development Corporation at present does not have this advantage. Once this Bill is passed, the Xhosa Development Corporation, which is at present trading, can be exempted from those provisions by the Minister. I am not asking that the hon. the Minister must make it more difficult for it. What I am trying to point out is that the businesses which are in competition with it at the moment in the Bantu areas are going to be handicapped. They are there; they are trading and it is their livelihood. I am not asking to make the Act only applicable to Bantu buyers.

Are they white businesses?

There are white and Bantu businesses. It will not only be competing with white businesses but it will also be competing with Bantu businesses. It will be competing with private enterprise. If the policy is to give exemption to businesses because their clientele or customers are poorer than the normal customer and they must therefore be given extended facilities, then I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider—and he can do it in the General Law Amendment Bill—giving this exemption to other businesses in the areas where the corporations trade. It is not only white businesses. Bantu business men as well will be competing with these people. I do not think the hon. the Minister can do anything in this Bill to protect them.

No, I cannot.

But the hon. the Minister can do it in the General Law Amendment Bill. I am asking the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the other people who come into competition with the corporations in the Bantu areas. There are established businesses. In the case of new businesses I would say it is all right, because they know what the position is. But there are established businesses. There will also be new Bantu businesses to be established in the area and I submit that they should have the same facilities as the corporations.

Mr. Chairman, this is a completely new suggestion. I agree with the hon. member that we. cannot possibly incorporate it in this Bill. I shall not be able to change this Bill accordingly even in the Other Place. I will, however, undertake to consider the matter and if there is nothing we can. do about it, I shall discuss it with the hon. member at a later stage.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this measure at present under our consideration is supported by both sides of this House. I was informed that the hon. member for Wynberg, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, is not present because of indisposition, but in spite of her absence, I feel obliged to reply to the points which she raised.

In the first place she objected, and she objected very strongly, to the fact that the regulations had not been issued in terms of this Act and that I was obliged to come back to this House at this time in order to legalize certain activities of the committee. I must admit that this is a perfectly reasonable question. Indeed, I myself asked this question when the Bill was first submitted to me. I want to say, however, that in the light of the facts the hon. member for Wynberg was adopting an exaggerated standpoint. What was her standpoint in fact? She said these occurrences were proof of inefficient administration. She elaborated fairly extensively on the fact that here we were concerned with a committee which had been administering R100,000 of the taxpayers’ money for six years, without the regulations which had to make provision for a quorum at their meetings and for the procedure to be followed at those meetings, having being made. She Said this could be proof of further poor administration which might exist.

In addition she said and I am sorry that the hon. member did say this, that this was a serious reflection on the members of this committee. The members of this committee serve on that committee on a completely voluntary basis. They receive no remuneration for their services. They are all honourable people. I want to trust that the hon. member for Wynberg did not mean this as seriously as it seems when one sees it in black and white. I, on my part, want to express my sincere gratitude towards these people, who are all busy people, for finding the time to work together also in this connection on this important matter.

Mr. Speaker, what are the facts of this matter? In the first place, I want to say that it is not a settled matter that the meetings held by this Bursary Funds Committee were irregular. In fact, a very great deal of doubt exists as to whether they were irregular at all. The relevant section of the principal Act, i.e. section 9, provides that the Minister “may” make regulations and not that he “shall” make regulations. Therefore the hon. member was-adopting the wrong point of view in her representations. She said the Minister had neglected to make regulations he had to make. Here she made a mistake, because this is not the case.

What is also important, is that this committee is only an advisory committee, that it therefore has no executive power and actually no control over this money in regard to which it has to make recommendations. The Secretary and the officials of the department in actual fact control this money which is donated for this purpose. Therefore this committee only meets as a committee of trustworthy and informed people in order to make recommendations to the Minister about the way in which bursary and loan awards are to be made. I may also mention the fact that th “ activities of this committee from the time of its appointment up to now will indicate that the neglect which occurred in this instance, is not at all as serious as what the hon. member suggested. The fact of the matter is that there was no work for the committee in the first year of its existence, because there was no money to allocate. The fund consisted of a donation of R500,000 which had been made by the State of which only the interest could be utilized for awards. One normally receives that interest only after a year. In the first year of the fund’s existence, there was not one single donation from the public; therefore the committee in reality had no function to fulfil. Consequently it was not necessary for it to take into consideration rules in connection with a quorum and the procedure at meetings. I shall leave this matter at that. I do not think it is so serious. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Wynberg that it need not be such an important source for criticism.

There the hon. member for Wynberg made representations that I should consider laying down that donors, whether they be companies, persons or organizations, should have the right by law to indicate not only which university or educational institution should enjoy the benefit of the donation but also which field of study and even which student. She built up quite an argument around this request of hers. The hon. member asked what my principles were in connection with this matter. My standpoint is that the universities and the educational institutions which receive this money, are in a better position than any donor to judge where the need actually exists. They know which students are needy and which are deserving. They are in a better position than the donor to judge who should receive the benefit of such a bursary or loan. I want to say, however, that up to now it has been the policy of this Bursary Committee to take the wishes of donors into consideration as far as possible. When a donor has said he would like to make a donation in any particular direction, whether the scientific direction, or the human sciences direction, or to a particular university or to a particular school in terms of the Act, the Bursary Committee has taken that into consideration without any provision in the Act to that effect. This is one of the general rules of policy followed by this committee.

In addition I want to say I have here a legal opinion in terms of which it is quite possible for a donor to request or to indicate that his donation should be used in a particular direction or for a particular purpose. However, it cannot be made binding on the recipient of that donation. The legal opinion is—

Therefore I think I should tell the hon. member for Wynberg that I should not like to amend the Act in a way so as to give statutory rights to donors to prescribe in such detail what should be done with their donations. I may give her the assurance that the Bursary Fund Committee as well as the universities which deal with this matter will, in fact, take the wishes of donors into account as far as possible.

I want to point out that we in South Africa, often hear the. in my opinion, unfair complaint that the State is threatening the autonomy of the universities because it is providing most of the means. In America there is a similar complaint, but on another basis. In America the universities complain that their autonomy is being threatened by commerce and industry which provide most of the money for the universities there. I do not want us to move in this direction. It is not a good direction to move in; we should rather leave it to the discretion of the universities themselves to decide on these matters.

In my opinion the hon. member for Durban (Central) adopted an attitude which was more correct, and I appreciate it as coming from someone who was in the profession. He adopted the attitude that we should not amend the Act in a way that would violate the original aims of the Act. He pleaded for the needy student who would not be helped as conditions imposed on donations excluded him from those loans. I think the best example which supports the standpoint of the hon. member for Durban (Central), is the very fact that certain bursary funds exist in our country which were created by benevolent couples, for example, for the decendants of their family circle. Two very extraordinary developments arise from such funds. In the first place one finds that money is available at the university which administers such a fund or at a body which has to administer that fund on behalf of the original donor, but that they may not award loans or bursaries to a needy student because the awards have been earmarked for the decendants of the original donors. In other words, the money remains useless in that fund while other people who could have been helped, do not have the use of that money. There is another negative development from such donations, and that is that one finds relatives of such donors who keep on studying. The money which was made available by a grandmother or a grandfather or a great-grandfather is there and then they use such a fund to study in the one direction after the other. They go overseas, follow another direction, return and start from the beginning again. This is the sort of student who is known as the perennial student and he never becomes productive in society. For that reason, I think the hon. member for Durban (Central) had a more sober and practical outlook on this matter. He, as a young member, need not feel bad about the fact that he differs from other hon. members on his side. I think on matters of this kind we may differ amongst ourselves. I am grateful for his contribution in this regard.

I now come to the hon. member for Berea. The hon. Chief Whip informed me that unfortunately this hon. member could not be present. This hon. member pleaded for the State to make a larger contribution to this fund. Now I just want to point out that the State has donated a considerable amount to this fund. An initial donation of R500,000 was made by the State. Furthermore, I want to point out to him that in terms of the existing legislation, the State will forfeit R40 in income tax for every R100 which is donated by a company. In other words, the State is making another contribution in addition to this R500,000 and apart from a series of other study loans which it makes available in different fields. I do not want to elaborate on these loans now. The hon. member for Berea expressed further criticism and said the balance of this fund was too large. He asked why that money could not be given to universities so that they could help students. There are several reasons which will elucidate this matter. I should like to mention them. In the first place, section 6 of the Act provides that the Minister will annually determine the basis on which moneys are to be allocated. This he does on the recommendation of this Bursary Committee. Furthermore, it is a fact that those universities to which the allocations are made, do not take up and spend that money immediately. For example, I may mention that R84,150 has been allocated to universities from this fund, of which amount only R26,325 has been taken up at the present time. In other words, the universities still have that credit balance with the fund and they will, of course, take it up as they need it. The rest is there and will be paid to them on demand. This will obviously decrease the balance of the fund to a marked degree, because the State’s contribution of R500,000 is not spent. Only the interest on that is spent. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that if a student is helped in the first year, he will probably have to be helped in his second and third year as well. Therefore it is necessary for the Fund Committee to have regard to and to ensure that there are sufficient means in the fund so that a student who has been helped once, will not subsequently be left in the lurch because of a lack of funds. This explains why there is more money in the fund than what the hon. member for Berea thinks there should be in the fund.

The last point I want to make is that clause 6 which is before this House for its consideration, in fact makes it possible for the balance in this fund to be smaller in future in the sense that it authorizes me to pay out any donation which has been made, immediately to the institution for which it is intended. In terms of the old legislation, it was paid into the Fund where it remained until the Fund Committee had disposed of it and I as Minister had taken a decision in regard to it. Now it will be possible to make those payments immediately to the universities or to the educational institutions for which it is intended. Therefore I think the complaint of the hon. member for Berea falls away. But the hon. member for Berea expressed another point of criticism as well. He said—

I do not think it is as serious as he wants to suggest. It seems to me that the hon. member wants to reap where he has not sown. The fact of the matter is that there was no reaction from the private sector. In the last speech I delivered, before I went overseas, on this same subject when I still was M.P. for Johannesburg (West), I pleaded for each one of us to use our influence in companies in which we had influence in order to ensure that they would make a contribution to this fund. This did not happen, and surely the hon. member for Berea cannot say that he did something in this regard. But what did the State do? The State went so far as to appoint an official, Mr. Weir, to approach the companies, and the sharp increase in contributions to the revenue of this fund which we received in later years, are attributable to Mr. Weir, who obtained these donations for the fund. I should like to express my gratitude towards Mr. Weir for the fine achievements we have had from him up to now, and I hope that the amending Bill which is now before this House, will facilitate his work. I want to make an appeal to everybody once again to propagate the matter of support to universities. I know this is not as sensational as many things in politics are, but if we all propagate it, I think the universities and educational institutions will be able to solve many of their problems with the benevolent co-operation of commerce and industry.

Moton put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

The House adjourned at 6.26 p.m.